https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #17 from Andi Kleen ---
With the patches now in trunk the overhead for enabling
-Wmisleading-indentation is now ~32% unless --param=file-cache-lines=1 is
used. With the drop behind cache it would be noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a992ecad0f302f69c4f6c42708c737eabaa60dc
commit r15-7327-g4a992ecad0f302f69c4f6c42708c737eabaa60dc
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Wed Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:baf26fccfb51fa54fcf7c668b96cae4cdbe574b3
commit r15-7329-gbaf26fccfb51fa54fcf7c668b96cae4cdbe574b3
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Thu Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33acec612423efd2d9db9ffc808c4d103840dcd2
commit r15-7328-g33acec612423efd2d9db9ffc808c4d103840dcd2
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Wed Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae814afad900edf1f19850985614398e0875618c
commit r15-7326-gae814afad900edf1f19850985614398e0875618c
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Wed Dec
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:57 PM Geeta Dora
wrote:
>
> Thank you. I wanted to mention that on Linux, even when using a response
> file, we still encounter the same issue if the response file exceeds 128KB in
> size.
>
> Does this imply that GCC enforces a limit on individual command-line
> argu
Thank you. I wanted to mention that on Linux, even when using a response
file, we still encounter the same issue if the response file exceeds 128KB
in size.
Does this imply that GCC enforces a limit on individual command-line
arguments (including those in response files) such that no argument sh
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:31 PM Geeta Dora via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> Dear GCC Developers,
>
> I encountered an issue where GCC fails to compile when the total
> command-line argument
> size exceeds 128KB.
>
> In contrast, Clang can handle the same compilation scenario without issues.
>
> Is this a kn
Dear GCC Developers,
I encountered an issue where GCC fails to compile when the total
command-line argument
size exceeds 128KB.
In contrast, Clang can handle the same compilation scenario without issues.
Is this a known limitation in GCC, and are there any workarounds or plans
to address this?
W
Dear GCC Developers,
I encountered an issue where GCC fails to compile when the total
command-line argument
size exceeds 128KB.
In contrast, Clang can handle the same compilation scenario without issues.
Is this a known limitation in GCC, and are there any workarounds or plans
to address this?
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I wonder if reapplying the fix for PR 116028 will improve the situtation
> here.
No.
Baseline:
r15-7318-gdd6247cb8fc1 coremark cycles:
4897981
(Re-)ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118724
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I wonder if the fix was the patch for 117434.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Hmm now me the easiest way is just not to run
vect_look_through_possible_promotion:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
index 45fcec40a28..533f4816270 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> My patch does not work for a slightly twisted test case:
>
> /* { dg-do run } */
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" } */
>
> __attribute__((noipa)) int
> foo (si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e097b376f170d531b86e6e6dc763db0ab5a8700d
commit r13-9361-ge097b376f170d531b86e6e6dc763db0ab5a8700d
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e77549e1860249abafb8fc325fc4c1885b0d8c4
commit r14-11269-g1e77549e1860249abafb8fc325fc4c1885b0d8c4
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
My patch does not work for a slightly twisted test case:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" } */
__attribute__((noipa)) int
foo (signed char *x, signed char *y, int n)
{
int i, r = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40093
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Plus the initialization functions are all placed in the .text.init section too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01274.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40093
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://llvm.org/devmtg/2024-04/slides/TechnicalTalks/Hoag-TemporalProfiling-and-OrderfileOptimization-forMobileApps.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Optimization by functios|Optimization by functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113597
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> Note trunk can do better IPA CP and replace the argument g with 0.
Actually that is not the reason why optimizes down to this.
r[4] = float32x4_t{b[5] - c[3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113597
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note trunk can do better IPA CP and replace the argument g with 0.
On the gimple level we get:
float32x4_t r[16];
[local count: 6156018]:
r[4] = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 };
__builtin_memcpy (v_53(D),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118729
--- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A broken read should be fine, as write would only access the part that was
read. I agree that for I/O it probably does not matter, but for other cases it
might.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118729
Bug ID: 118729
Summary: dead store elimination with function attributes for
read / write and similar functions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118164
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Hello.
The symptom is similar, but I have no way to tell if it this the same bug. Seen
with 14.2.0.
cat > main.adb <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #13 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org wrote:
>
> > But unfortunately the gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c failure on
> > armv8l-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #43 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89075
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60361&action=edit
Testcase that is updated for implicit types removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Did you adjust the code to use std::span?
I didn't say that just adding -fhardened will diagnose anything. My point is
that using std::span instead of char* will make b-1 ill-formed, and b[-1]
will abort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60360&action=edit
testcase
Attaching the testcase for easier access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|deferred|
Target Milestone|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-02
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:969c30885558d092ad07c9c71dd54ea14f6096c6
commit r15-7324-g969c30885558d092ad07c9c71dd54ea14f6096c6
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0008df2118233f1afbed76ce308b4dfb6e6fc1a
commit r15-7323-gc0008df2118233f1afbed76ce308b4dfb6e6fc1a
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60359&action=edit
Proposed patch containing documentation section and new example test code
This patch contains an additional sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117228
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Attachment went to the wrong PR !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117228
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60358
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60358&action=edit
Proposed patch containing documentation section and new example test code
This patch contains an additional sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Green ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> std::span should diagnose it with -fhardened
I couldn't get `-fhardened` to complain either on godbolt or locally (with gcc
14.2.0). I tried `-O0`, `-O1`, `-O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-02
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::span should diagnose it with -fhardened
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
line 1408, tree-vect-patterns.cc:
if (gimple_call_internal_fn (abd_stmt) == IFN_ABD)
{
if (!vect_look_through_possible_promotion (vinfo, abd_oprnd0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118728
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This is most likely an issue with the QEMU VMs that are currently being tested
in SMP mode with a new kernel patch applied.
Let me switch them to unicore mode and let's check whether this fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |testsuite-fail
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118728
Bug ID: 118728
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE, during RTL pass: vartrack,
corrupted double-linked list on alpha-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Harris ---
I've just noticed the invalid offset in the PLT is the first bytes of the
sibcall in _start.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Harris ---
Thanks for your response! I apologize, I didn't notice the `--with-bugurl`
until you pointed it out.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> 0124 :
> 124: movsr0, r0
> 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727
Bug ID: 118727
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.dg/pr108692.c fails on LoongArch
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|g++ destroys con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60356&action=edit
A Scalar testcase which shows this is a regression from GCC 4.9.x now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60355&action=edit
Another testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xiaohuba2021 at 163 dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 60354 [details]
> > fixedup testcase
>
> This fails even with GCC 3.4.6 but I have no way t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60354 [details]
> fixedup testcase
This fails even with GCC 3.4.6 but I have no way to test the old parser.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|deconstructor for variable |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
62 matches
Mail list logo
