https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118660
Bug ID: 118660
Summary: [14/15 Regression] VRP gets in the way sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55d288d4ff5360c572f2a017ba9385840ac5134e
commit r15-7215-g55d288d4ff5360c572f2a017ba9385840ac5134e
Author: Pan Li
Date: Sat Jan 25 15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118659
Bug ID: 118659
Summary: get_known_nonzero_bits_1 should use wi::bit_and_not
instead of `a & ~b`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118658
Bug ID: 118658
Summary: `(a | CST)` -> a if we know that a already contains
all bits of CST set
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 6:52 PM Kok How Teh via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> vector a = {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14};
> assert(43589145600 == accumulate(a.begin(), a.end(), 1, multiplies()));
>
> That assertion fails! What do I miss?
You missed that 1 is in type int and you want to accumulate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60281&action=edit
reduced and made into a C testcase
vector a = {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14};
assert(43589145600 == accumulate(a.begin(), a.end(), 1, multiplies()));
That assertion fails! What do I miss?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
Bug ID: 118657
Summary: Missed optimization (unreachable branch could be
pruned after taking into account the possible values
of a constexpr lookup table)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101602
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have the patch applied here. do_concurrent_12.f90 has six failures that look
like related to optimization. I will see if I can figure this out.
Running /home/jerry/dev/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101602
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> Bug still exists some 8 weeks earlier at 2024-09-15:
It existed since at least before may 2024 when gcc 14 was branched off.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #10 from Alfredo Correa ---
Ok, fair points.
In that case, wouldn't it be more consistent that the `contiguous_iterator`
concept checks for these `noexcept` characteristics?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Bug still exists some 8 weeks earlier at 2024-09-15:
foundBugs $ ../results.5f0a381801b754db/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist at date 2024-11-10:
foundBugs $ ../results.32cf28ccc9e77ce0/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep/in.39468.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist two weeks earlier (2024-12-08):
foundBugs $ ../results.be8d1a358e3abc50/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b63840e07132f72.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> > The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
>
> Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b6384
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect r14-5106-g95cfa2cdd1b525 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.1.0, 14.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110993
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60280&action=edit
Reduced reformated slightly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101602
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 60279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60279&action=edit
Draft patch - see comment 6 for known issues
... this includes REDUCE.
Note that no real concurrency except fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be:
short g_72, g_173;
int g_100[];
int func_1___trans_tmp_9;
short(safe_sub_func_int16_t_s_s)(short si1, short si2) { return si1 - si2; }
void func_1() {
for (; g_173; g_173 = saf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101602
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116330
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60278
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60278&action=edit
As far as I can get it
Note changes in white spaces even spaces to returns will cause the compare
debug to go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68725
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note C23 adds static compound literals which I think is the right appoarch
(with the addition of the const qualifier) for these kind of code where you
want the variable in read only data rather than on the st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117737
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:765769dfeb1a3ce85d6f2c2b071dd1d7d6544280
commit r15-7213-g765769dfeb1a3ce85d6f2c2b071dd1d7d6544280
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118010
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:765769dfeb1a3ce85d6f2c2b071dd1d7d6544280
commit r15-7213-g765769dfeb1a3ce85d6f2c2b071dd1d7d6544280
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So looking at this after a long period away, one thing does stand out as a
potential path forward. Specifically early jump threading.
If we look at the key blocks:
;; basic block 4, loop depth 0, maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fd2158acac181a308126ad7b798b478eb3b7087
commit r15-7212-g8fd2158acac181a308126ad7b798b478eb3b7087
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118656
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this was reported to them before:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118656
Bug ID: 118656
Summary: glibc getenv returns the wrong result sometimes if the
parameter contains '='
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simplified testcase from the duplicate bug report:
```
typedef __attribute__((__vector_size__(1))) unsigned char V;
V
foo(V v)
{
return *(V *)(&v - 1);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2f024f586e99fb63dd49e0603f52d1cb765a77e
commit r15-7211-ge2f024f586e99fb63dd49e0603f52d1cb765a77e
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Wed Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118010
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2531cb1d20d9c5b8a5390816a10a018c59506250
commit r15-7210-g2531cb1d20d9c5b8a5390816a10a018c59506250
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60266|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alfredo.correa at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I should backport that though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 118239, which changed state.
Bug 118239 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] accepts invalid constexpr variable
definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118239
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118239
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118239
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bee1910b891f897fcd1789d1dbd3937621354943
commit r15-7209-gbee1910b891f897fcd1789d1dbd3937621354943
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Summary|ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116256
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116256
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5990a6ce611f522b8f48c2b469983da19d39777
commit r15-7208-ge5990a6ce611f522b8f48c2b469983da19d39777
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sat Jan 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig ---
Considering that ctz is rather expensive, comparable to an
integer multiplication, I think I will do away with this
optimization altogether - we are spending log2(n) imuls anyway.
I think the library versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118655
Bug ID: 118655
Summary: __is_bounded_array returns true for zero-size arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118654
Bug ID: 118654
Summary: d: getTargetInfo key "CET" not supported by this
implementation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Bug ID: 118653
Summary: ice in vectorizable_live_operation, at
tree-vect-loop.cc:11573
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc 15 implements c++23 range for temporaries lifetime correctly and that broke
coroutines. There are a few other duplicates of this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-coroutines
Summary|co_yield
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117214
--- Comment #2 from XU Kailiang ---
Is this patch usable? Steps to setup struct tm are copied from other functions
in chrono_io.h. Hope I didn't get them wrong.
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/chrono_io.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/chrono_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
Alexey Slizkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.1.0, 14.2.0
Build|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118639
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7eac20b0dde8df303557b6dd550d06ee98836c3c
commit r15-7207-g7eac20b0dde8df303557b6dd550d06ee98836c3c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Slizkov ---
Created attachment 60275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60275&action=edit
ccSPiPCI.out, the preprocessed source
I was required to compress to attach here (original size 1.5MB)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
--- Comment #1 from Alexey Slizkov ---
Created attachment 60274
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60274&action=edit
solve.cpp, the minimized cpp source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118652
Bug ID: 118652
Summary: co_yield interaction with range-based for causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117827
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce268ca2a923f8f35cc9dd5a7d0468a3980f129f
commit r15-7206-gce268ca2a923f8f35cc9dd5a7d0468a3980f129f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
inux-gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-20250125022813-r15-7205-gd0acb7b2b26d4f-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250125 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #12 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #10)
> (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #8)
> > A fix for PR/118464 is posted to list [1] which also cures this issue.
> >
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/
80 matches
Mail list logo
