https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
--- Comment #7 from Simon Sobisch ---
UB may be necessary to trigger that (and with GCC+libc that _does_ work on all
environments but GNU/Linux 32bit [in theory it could also be multiarch -m32,
but I think that should not make a difference]) :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-26
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Interesting clang/LLVM only does this for -Os and only on x86_64. I am agreeing
it should be done at -O2 because it is almost always better to zero extend
rather than sign extend on MOST if not all targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
--- Comment #2 from Kang-Che Sung ---
(Sorry I didn't know what happened with the bug report system, but I submitted
an empty report by accident. I added the report in comment 1.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
--- Comment #1 from Kang-Che Sung ---
For signed integers that GCC can detect to be always positive, it uses signed
extension instead of zero extension, even in the "-Os" optimization mode.
For x86-64, sometimes zero extension can produce small
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
Bug ID: 120434
Summary: (x86-64) GCC uses 'movsxd' for positive variables
larger code than 'mov'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120433
--- Comment #3 from fujin zhao ---
(In reply to fujin zhao from comment #2)
> I've refactored a0_in_asm() as requested, but the result remains unchanged.
> Here’s the updated implementation:
>
>
> __attribute__((noinline)) uint32_t a0_in_asm()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120433
--- Comment #2 from fujin zhao ---
I've refactored a0_in_asm() as requested, but the result remains unchanged.
Here’s the updated implementation:
__attribute__((noinline)) uint32_t a0_in_asm() {
uint32_t result;
asm volatile (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120433
Bug ID: 120433
Summary: RISC-V:Unexpected Sign-Extension Behavior for uint32_t
Return Values in RV64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Another issue with the commit:
+;; With -Oz, transform mov $imm,reg to the shorter push $imm; pop reg.
+(define_peephole2
+ [(set (match_operand:SWI248 0 "general_reg_operand")
+ (match_operand:SWI248 1 "const_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120432
Bug ID: 120432
Summary: flat_map operator[] is broken for const lvalue keys
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119966
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dimitar Dimitrov from comment #10)
> This issue was fixed with r16-809-gf725d6765373f7.
That commit was not even supposed to fix this either. Even though that did fix
the issue that exposed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[12/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112349
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|14.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111250
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431
--- Comment #1 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #0)
> Consider,
>
> real :: arr
> arr = 1
> print *, spread(arr, 1, -1)
> end
>
Small update. The above should be handled in simplification,
but curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0100ea2b4eb1c83972e0db07503a7cfe8a38932e
commit r14-11805-g0100ea2b4eb1c83972e0db07503a7cfe8a38932e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c21d7eaf8383749d1a9cd266709ec9ed04e3a00
commit r14-11804-g9c21d7eaf8383749d1a9cd266709ec9ed04e3a00
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Michael Eager
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac1fb51c7b780159837e951bd893954d7d8803a
commit r15-9727-g4ac1fb51c7b780159837e951bd893954d7d8803a
Author: Michael J. Eager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431
Bug ID: 120431
Summary: SPREAD does not handle scalar argument and NCOPIES=-1
correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Michael Eager :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2159f024f63c12fd356748ae8fc106bb9b355688
commit r16-871-g2159f024f63c12fd356748ae8fc106bb9b355688
Author: Michael J. Eager
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99526
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-25
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99526
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/tree/master/tools/gcc-plugins
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/tools/gcc-plugins/gcc-retain-typeinfo.patch
seems like the patch which will fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Simon Sobisch from comment #4)
> @sjames: What do you mean with "needs reduction"? And do you intend to do it
> on your own?
Yes this is more of a keyword for GCC developers rather than for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120070
--- Comment #6 from Adam Sampson ---
Created attachment 61518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61518&action=edit
Minimised example 2
I've just run into a second example of this while crossbuilding libzip 1.11.4 -
the attache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120430
--- Comment #1 from Liam Powell ---
When a generic parameter of a package is used in a child package but not the
parent package a bogus warning is generated. Example below:
generic
Foo : Integer;
package A is
end A;
generic
package A.B is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120430
Bug ID: 120430
Summary: Bogus formal object is not referenced
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52171
Kael Franco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaelfandrew at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #107 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Yong :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5840bf969e2bfdf4f6c51d04aeb1a96a87727d80
commit r16-867-g5840bf969e2bfdf4f6c51d04aeb1a96a87727d80
Author: LIU Hao
Date: Sat Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Yong :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5840bf969e2bfdf4f6c51d04aeb1a96a87727d80
commit r16-867-g5840bf969e2bfdf4f6c51d04aeb1a96a87727d80
Author: LIU Hao
Date: Sat Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Janko Dedic from comment #24)
> It seems like P2014 is no longer being pursued.
>
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/750#issuecomment-2657897866
I spoke with the author, the paper has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #24 from Janko Dedic ---
It seems like P2014 is no longer being pursued.
https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/750#issuecomment-2657897866
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 120424 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 118939 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
--- Comment #4 from Simon Sobisch ---
@sjames: What do you mean with "needs reduction"? And do you intend to do it on
your own?
[Note: I've reduced the original program that was generated from as much as
possible, then also reduced the amount o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118989
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
41 matches
Mail list logo
