https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #453 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #452)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #451)
> > There have been several changes and fixes to the LRA module recently. Also
> > by Alex himself. I wonde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hjl.tools at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #454 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #453)
> As we have already learned from this PR here, a bootstrap is not sufficient
> evidence that everything works normally. If it bootstraps and can't com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #451 from Oleg Endo ---
There have been several changes and fixes to the LRA module recently. Also by
Alex himself. I wonder if all the hacks in the current patch set are still all
needed or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #452 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #451)
> There have been several changes and fixes to the LRA module recently. Also
> by Alex himself. I wonder if all the hacks in the current patch set are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120841
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc is already better than llvm by figuring out the return of memcpy is the
first argument.
I am not sure if the one extra move is going hurt here either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Peyret ---
same on Mac ARM :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687768.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2025-06-26 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120841
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
I'll look.
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
It starts with r16-1551-g2c30f828e45078 with your patch on top. I did the
bisection without SSP as the default (vanilla).
When playing with the result on my usual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
I backported the patch to GCC 15 branch, which works. Sam, is it possible to
identify which commit on master caused the miscompilation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120841
Bug ID: 120841
Summary: gcc prefer non-volatile register produces sub optimal
code
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #2)
> @Sam James
>
> Passing CFLAGS="-fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer" to the
> configure fixes the crash for me, does it do the same for you? If so this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #2 from Ken Jin ---
@Sam James
Passing CFLAGS="-fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer" to the
configure fixes the crash for me, does it do the same for you? If so this is
probably a pretty big hint.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120828, which changed state.
Bug 120828 Summary: [16 Regression] Unrecognized insn after recent RISC-V
change for .vf support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Just ftr: with ./configure --with-tail-call-interp CFLAGS="-O2
-fno-stack-protector" (to override my own defaults), it still fails with a
corrupt stack.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
Let's carry on in a new bug: PR120840.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
Bug ID: 120840
Summary: CPython miscompiled with preserve_none
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Oh:
```
(rr) p Copy
$24 = (access system.exceptions.machine.gnat_gcc_exception) 0x56314ade85a0
(rr) disas
Dump of assembler code for function
ada__exceptions__exception_propagation__gnat_gcc_exception_cleanupXn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Everything seems fine(?) before we call `Free (Copy)`:
```
Breakpoint 1, ada.exceptions.exception_propagation.gnat_gcc_exception_cleanup
(reason=urc_foreign_exception_caught, excep=0x56314ade85a0) at
../rts/a-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
Bug ID: 120839
Summary: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: in
ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags, at
config/i386/i386.cc:8738 at -O1 and above with aligned
on struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
But for the top frame, _ada_gnatcmd is huge:
[...]
0x55575082 <-248190>:leardx,[rip+0xab707]#
0x55620790
0x55575089 <-24818
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> checking in gdb whether this is a misaligned vector access and/or whether we
> are in a early-break vectorized loop would be useful
(gdb) frame
#1 0x555c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> likewise whether -fno-tree-vectorize helps.
This didn't make a difference. I'll do the rest soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120830
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120830
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64c55a99746ef8efa37937ee0fef29de4f081f25
commit r16-1725-g64c55a99746ef8efa37937ee0fef29de4f081f25
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jun 26 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 61618 [details]
> > Patch which I am testing for the aarch64 issue
>
> But it miscompiles (the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120838
Bug ID: 120838
Summary: lra-eliminations: sp offsets are not reversible
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|14.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9a6efa7a71e80a0989ac91fb7f282468471bb46
commit r16-1724-gf9a6efa7a71e80a0989ac91fb7f282468471bb46
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccef9e5dd9ffde563f415f0b7117b48537c8e57d
commit r16-1723-gccef9e5dd9ffde563f415f0b7117b48537c8e57d
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b49473448966b045460a23794ed9a309e503fa3b
commit r16-1721-gb49473448966b045460a23794ed9a309e503fa3b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66b6da3b66ed0fe79e5db79b41eabe82952d1a9b
commit r16-1722-g66b6da3b66ed0fe79e5db79b41eabe82952d1a9b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c554467623ec53ae228d127cbec9c4ba3cdc027
commit r16-1719-g6c554467623ec53ae228d127cbec9c4ba3cdc027
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c554467623ec53ae228d127cbec9c4ba3cdc027
commit r16-1719-g6c554467623ec53ae228d127cbec9c4ba3cdc027
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b49473448966b045460a23794ed9a309e503fa3b
commit r16-1721-gb49473448966b045460a23794ed9a309e503fa3b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be547188b632d8c1072341c431af339b7384c4a6
commit r16-1720-gbe547188b632d8c1072341c431af339b7384c4a6
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ce8a87f78122509334c5cfeebb624f634ccf96e
commit r16-1718-g7ce8a87f78122509334c5cfeebb624f634ccf96e
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 61618 [details]
> Patch which I am testing for the aarch64 issue
But it miscompiles (there is no testcase for this though):
```
struct s1 { in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #22)
> Hi H.J,
>
> Thanks a lot for your work on this. I get a crash due to a possible
> miscompile on the latest GCC commit
> (7c67f7f8d4c8aadbe8efd733c29d13bfcbb0f50f).
>
> U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120836
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note this is not a regression.
>
> Using the same GC parameters for GCC 15 as the trunk, we get the same
> behavior.
I forgot to mention that the GC parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120836
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|16.0|---
Summary|[16 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120836
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Affects SQLite too (PR120837).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drh at sqlite dot org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
The RHS working sounds like it might be SAVE_EXPR stuff again?
hould give the same result. Yet, only the right
side works with gcc-ubsan when optimization is enabled.
== REPRO INSTRUCTIONS
* Download <https://sqlite.org/tmp/gcc-ubsan-20250626.tar.gz>
* Untar
* `gcc -O1 -fsanitize=undefined shell.c sqlite3.c -lm -ldl -lpthread`
* `./a.out ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120809
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #22)
--- snip---
>
> I can only ask you to do a clean build and maybe also drop the installation
> directory. Sometimes build systems find funny things and then t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120809
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e7296540be35831e791ffe9f419cd6107831fc9
commit r16-1715-g0e7296540be35831e791ffe9f419cd6107831fc9
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58323d4a03274114a09e75d7aad6d766aceff256
commit r15-9867-g58323d4a03274114a09e75d7aad6d766aceff256
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #12 from Filip Kastl ---
gfortran -std=legacy -c -o innerf.o -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native
innerf.f
these are the compile options, btw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
Benjamin Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61721|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #11 from Filip Kastl ---
So the file that is getting "miscompiled" is innerf.f.
I found out by compiling this gromacs source file with r16-1550 GCC and all the
other source files with r16-1549 GCC and then linking that together.
I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #23 from Ken Jin ---
> Hi Ken, my patch has been merged into GCC master branch. Can you give it a
> try?
I did a bench, note that this is not 100% what we use in CPython release
builds, as I had to pass `-fno-omit-frame-pointer -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|lra-elimination iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc does not recognize tail |gcc does not recognize tail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul-Antoine Arras :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:181cb2943d53862aa41eab49a042dff991a3d94f
commit r16-1713-g181cb2943d53862aa41eab49a042dff991a3d94f
Author: Paul-Antoine Arras
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110739
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:caac9489f62221da083684456c7c7ceca7425493
commit r16-1712-gcaac9489f62221da083684456c7c7ceca7425493
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110739
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b3cefed1a08344495fedec4982d85168bd8173f
commit r16-1709-g4b3cefed1a08344495fedec4982d85168bd8173f
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #22 from Ken Jin ---
Hi H.J,
Thanks a lot for your work on this. I get a crash due to a possible miscompile
on the latest GCC commit (7c67f7f8d4c8aadbe8efd733c29d13bfcbb0f50f).
Unfortunately, I cannot create a minimal reproducer ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120719
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120719
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8f7ace4f20829f2fad87662f5163c9b13427e39
commit r16-1706-gf8f7ace4f20829f2fad87662f5163c9b13427e39
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Peyret ---
Hello,
on Mac Intel, it works but not sure it still works on Mac ARM.
I test it more on tomorow but behaviour seems to be different
Sincerely,
Christophe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120637
--- Comment #7 from Antony Lewis ---
Thanks - yes certainly makes sense not to do this if there are still double
finalizations. *Why* there are still duplicate finalizations is then I guess
another issue.
(sorry, the agent must have messed up th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120637
--- Comment #6 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Hi Antony,
I could not apply your patch. Neither by git am nor by patch -p1. So I had to
replay it essentially. With that applied all seems to be fine, executionwise.
But the regression tests fail for f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120836
Bug ID: 120836
Summary: [16 regression] Including hides
'satisfaction value ... changed' diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118518
--- Comment #17 from Benjamin Schulz ---
My code in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
apparently provokes gcc to yield different results for the same computation
with differing -O optimization levels...
I do not use any k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #9 from Benjamin Schulz ---
compile with -g -fopenmp -foffload=nvptx-none -fno-stack-protector lrt lm lc
lstdc++ lmpi and various -O levels, of course
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Schulz ---
and please forgive me for the large test case.
It is probably difficult to shrink this to a small example...
I do not know why gcc behaves this way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #7 from Benjamin Schulz ---
note that the matrix multiplication becomes only crazy with increasing -O when
called within another function that does computations.
correct are these:
A Cholesky decomposition with the multiplicat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61727&action=edit
with O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61726&action=edit
with-O2 results also wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61725
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61725&action=edit
results with O1, now the matrix multiplication becomes crazy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61724&action=edit
correct results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61723
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61723&action=edit
cmake lists.txt for easy switch of the compilers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61722&action=edit
main which calls the library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120835
Bug ID: 120835
Summary: on nvptx target with openmp, gcc 15.1 computes
different results with differing -O levels.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120831
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-26
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why are you using the attribute at -O0?
In any case, this boils down to roughly -O0 -fsanitize=address
[[gnu::noipa]] int
foo (int x)
{
return x;
}
[[gnu::noipa]] void
bar (int *x, int *y, int *z)
{
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #7)
> what should the following print?
> [...]
By now I think we should just leave those examples continue to be ODR
violations. The C++ machinery for d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #15)
> I tested again this time with taskset, turbo boost off, on a quiet system,
> with PGO. These are the results. They're quite good:
>
> # Indirect goto + LTO + PGO
> This m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120834
Bug ID: 120834
Summary: Potential memory leak during exception handling
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
