https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119425
--- Comment #3 from Hu Lin ---
Confirmed, constraint "jm" should with attr "addr" "gpr16". I'll send the patch
out after I've gone through all the existing patterns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60858&action=edit
Easy running testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60857
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60857&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
So what is interesting is at -O2 (but not -O1 or -O0) GCC 3.4.6 worked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60858|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 60858 [details]
> > Easy running testcase
>
> With this, we can make it a regression (5.5 works)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 60858 [details]
> Easy running testcase
With this, we can make it a regression (5.5 works)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
On this combiner fails to match:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (subreg:V4SI (reg:V2DI 101 [ ]) 0)
(sign_extend:V4SI (vec_select:V4HI (mem:V8HI (reg:DI 106) [0 *x_3(D)+0 S16
A128])
(p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> But for this case, I think targetm.can_change_mode_class (op_mode,
> result_mode, ALL_REGS) is not needed since it's memory.
I mean case in #c1, for case in #c0, it's more complicated.
1. It's also rela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fc2f849f58d3b35a7d7ceca057be07f9ad6284d
commit r15-8684-g9fc2f849f58d3b35a7d7ceca057be07f9ad6284d
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ada:|[14/15 Regression] ada:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #53 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #52)
> I'm not working on this. Honza, I'd like to see loop-distribution
> automatically disable pattern recognition when a) inside a function named
> like patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119436
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.0, 6.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119154
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fcb9d39c36ae0c1b1681c68d314580ae0c820c4
commit r15-8687-g9fcb9d39c36ae0c1b1681c68d314580ae0c820c4
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
WFM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119439
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119439
Bug ID: 119439
Summary: gcc_assert and gcc_checking_assert should use
[[assume(x)]];
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> Sorry, this machine was testing with --enable-checking=release. Fixing that
> works (so gcc_checking_assert does something). But it means I see the
> warning with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88319
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70bc553e1b565d2e162894ea29a223b44e9133e3
commit r15-8689-g70bc553e1b565d2e162894ea29a223b44e9133e3
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
Sorry, this machine was testing with --enable-checking=release. Fixing that
works (so gcc_checking_assert does something). But it means I see the warning
with release-checking, so maybe should do gcc_assert ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #18 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #16)
> >
> > 4952 /* See if a MEM has already been loaded with a widening operation;
> > 4953 if it has, we can use a subreg of that. Many CISC machines
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119425
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lin1.hu at intel dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119438
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This should not be too hard to add, current code does:
```
/* Check the stringifying # constraint 6.10.3.2.1 of
function-like macros when lexing the subsequent token. */
if (macro->coun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119438
Bug ID: 119438
Summary: More descriptive warning desired: '#' is not followed
by a macro parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've checked in patches doing most of the re-ordering, but I'm leaving this
issue open for now because I'd still like to do something to group the
attributes and built-ins sections, once I figure o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104255
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 119434 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #54 from Rich Felker ---
I don't think name detection is a reasonable solution to this problem. It won't
solve anything when there's an intermediate call where you'd get indirect
recursion.
The right solution here is always honoring
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |14.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117832
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Gave a little test of this flag. Doesn't look like it will be able to replace
all the uses where `memset(0)` is currently generated in the D front-end.
It probably doesn't harm to have both this and `-ftrivia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119437
Bug ID: 119437
Summary: ICE in build_base_path, at cp/class.cc:302
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
For completeness, it was also "fixed" on trunk by r15-472-g151d1533f2b5d1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119437
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.0, 8.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119434
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf2157abfa0d3e685d888df57052740c5ec87950
commit r15-8685-gbf2157abfa0d3e685d888df57052740c5ec87950
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
s/gcc_assert_checking/gcc_checking_assert/ :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118616
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/678928.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96492302a23c945d35fe1c83062da6f22c4f7b72
commit r15-8686-g96492302a23c945d35fe1c83062da6f22c4f7b72
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:557e809455a886e8f59f57e5c7b0a940e028d130
commit r15-8683-g557e809455a886e8f59f57e5c7b0a940e028d130
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #12 from Eric Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119436
Bug ID: 119436
Summary: ICE in pop_local_binding, at cp/name-lookup.cc:2636
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
--- Comment #2 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> I am actually surprised we don't have an enhancement bug for this.
>
> The reason we do not have this is because it needs linker support (for a
> complete impl.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> > I am actually surprised we don't have an enhancement bug for this.
> >
> > The reason we do not have this is becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|powerpc-ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88319
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
Bug ID: 119435
Summary: Darwin PowerPC error: constructor priorities are not
supported
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116827
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117002
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #4)
> I'm going to call this a bug in the D front-end.
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/EYvcfE4aK
>
> extern(C++) class Foo {
> ubyte[4] not_multiple_of_8;
> }
>
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |target
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcaz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117002
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
I'm going to call this a bug in the D front-end.
https://godbolt.org/z/EYvcfE4aK
extern(C++) class Foo {
ubyte[4] not_multiple_of_8;
}
static assert(__traits(classInstanceAlignment, Foo) == 8);
static a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119362
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 60856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60856&action=edit
ira-costs.cc patch to fix build on PA 1.x
The hunk of code disabled in the attached patch was added in com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72d85f2163306c8ba234d228d8071ed368cbd2f2
commit r13-9445-g72d85f2163306c8ba234d228d8071ed368cbd2f2
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4e7d446ec3efba0c70bebfa9ba6385c233ef083
commit r14-11439-ge4e7d446ec3efba0c70bebfa9ba6385c233ef083
Author: Iain Buclaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:597168191e2909aec745f4dc084e1f8d44fdb3e4
commit r15-8682-g597168191e2909aec745f4dc084e1f8d44fdb3e4
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sun M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118485
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #5)
> I see the same failure with vanilla gcc-15-20250119 in a native bootstrap on
> m68k-linux-gnu.
>
> Trying a bisect, but it'll be painfully slow.
gcc-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88319
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118546
Imple Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
The last change that touched TYPE_PACKED between 12..13 was
r13-1104-gf4c3ce32fa54c1.
Could start there for a quick bisect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119434
Bug ID: 119434
Summary: template argument 2 is invalid for CTAD
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Reduced test:
```
void test8847e()
{
auto foo()(inout int)
{
struct Bar {}
return inout(Bar)();
}
auto bar = foo(0);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 60797 [details]
> > reduced.i
>
> Hmm strangely I cannot reproduce the ICE with the reduced test case.
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Created attachment 60797 [details]
> reduced.i
Hmm strangely I cannot reproduce the ICE with the reduced test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117621
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-02-21 00:00:00 |2025-03-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119429
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another one testcase:
```
struct s1 {
int t;
};
char *f1(int);
char *f2(int a) {
s1 t;
asm("":"+m"(t));
[[clang::musttail]] return f1(a);
}
```
But this is about escapability of t.
78 matches
Mail list logo
