https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
This should be opt-in since it requires glibc fix
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31372
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118856
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53c832282690ca1cd86e2eaf0128c70ba4edfc0f
commit r16-1916-g53c832282690ca1cd86e2eaf0128c70ba4edfc0f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120684
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53c832282690ca1cd86e2eaf0128c70ba4edfc0f
commit r16-1916-g53c832282690ca1cd86e2eaf0128c70ba4edfc0f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48868
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Should we copy gcc.target/i386/math-torture for a new
> gcc.target/i386/tls-torture, and move testcases referencing __thread from
> gcc.target/i386 inside?
There are sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|*tls_global_dynamic_64_ has an implicit RDI |c_64_ has an implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48868
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
dg-torture as suggested in
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/CAFiYyc2s-nBPwON-zLqprGUy_nNOZwHCq9LtK99M53=xk+j...@mail.gmail.com/
would help.
Should we copy gcc.target/i386/math-torture for a new
gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120935
--- Comment #2 from pietro ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am 99% sure the problem is the definition of MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE.
Yup, defining MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE to GET_MODE_BITSIZE (TImode) fixes the build.
I'll send a patch w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38749
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120937
--- Comment #4 from Marc Adams ---
Sorry, you are correct and I am wrong. The result is subnormal negative and
rounds to -0. Thanks for your help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120937
--- Comment #3 from Marc Adams ---
Sorry, you are correct and I am wrong. The result is subnormal negative and
rounds to -0. Thanks for your help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2498cbbcdb23dabce36477ce84e0266374b7e886
commit r15-9904-g2498cbbcdb23dabce36477ce84e0266374b7e886
Author: Sam James
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b3e6dbe51362204d2c3544892720c7cea30b08c
commit r15-9903-g8b3e6dbe51362204d2c3544892720c7cea30b08c
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120937
--- Comment #2 from Marc Adams ---
The floating-point multiply is exact, no rounding, for type float and longer.
Please check that the operations with these values have no rounding for
yourself. Even if the multiply had rounding IEEE rules say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120935
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 99% sure the problem is the definition of MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|x86_function_profiler emits |[12/13/14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
Bug ID: 120936
Summary: x86_function_profiler emits an unused label
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120937
Bug ID: 120937
Summary: floating-point arithmetic can result zero with
incorrect sign
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #5)
> you mean during bootstrap gcc itself? (I didn't see such issue when
> bootstrap gcc before committing my patches)
It was only with certain options, not reduced which ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #27 from Sam James ---
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61788|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120935
Bug ID: 120935
Summary: ICE building libstdc++ for mmix
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #25)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> > Created attachment 61789 [details]
> > A patch to add --enable-x86-64-mfentry
>
> When wouldn't we want this enabled? Is it j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> Created attachment 61789 [details]
> A patch to add --enable-x86-64-mfentry
When wouldn't we want this enabled? Is it just a configure option because of a
small risk of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
` while `std::views::concat(r1,
r2)` is fine.
The same behavior has been observed on all recent GCC implementations I tested
(local GCC 15.1.0 and Godbolt GCC 15.1 and 16.0 trunk).
The following error message is produced by https://godbolt.org/z/ac5jKe4Gr (GCC
16.0.0 20250702 (experimental) with ` -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
Bug ID: 120933
Summary: Turn on -mtls-dialect=gnu2 by default on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61781|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120684
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
able-lto --disable-libsanitizer --enable-languages=c
CFLAGS='-O1 -g0' CXXFLAGS='-O1 -g0' LDFLAGS='-O1 -g0'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 16.0.0 20250702 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> >
> > Patch posted:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/688286.html
> >
> > That just fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #2)
> > could you please reduce the testing case to help me debug?
>
> Will do. Might take some time as I'm n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the same issue as those others listed as `see also`. Basically
reassociation is tied to the ssa #s and any small improvements to other code
earlier might change the ssa versions #s and that alone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110353
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Diego Garcia from comment #1)
> Not sure if this would be a separate bug (due to being C++23 related)
For C++23 constexpr in see Bug 105281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Started with r15-4473-g3abe751ea86e34 and this is the fix:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_uninitialized.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_uninitialized.h
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110353
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Diego Garcia from comment #1)
> > I would like to add to this that some functions (such as nextafter
> > and nexttoward) have been constexpr since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120932
Bug ID: 120932
Summary: Some math builtins (nextafter) needs trapping math
turned off for constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110353
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Diego Garcia from comment #1)
> I would like to add to this that some functions (such as nextafter
> and nexttoward) have been constexpr since C++23, they are marked as such,
> but the internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110353
Diego Garcia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||diego.garcia.cr at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect r15-4473-g3abe751ea86e34.
I am not 100% sure but I think it is a copy and pasto:
```
// Overload for generic iterators.
template
static void
__uninit_fill(_ForwardIter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118057
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|116242 |
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242
Bug 116242 depends on bug 118595, which changed state.
Bug 118595 Summary: [15/16 regression] RISC-V: gfortran/c-interop test
execution failures on RVV zvl > 128b since r15-3228-g771256bcb9d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60535|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
A has higher numerical error (3.09998e+02)
B has ok numerical error (3.12012e+02)
...
So in dump A we compute
x = vnb12 - vnb6 + vnbtot
z = FMA(a, b, FMS(vnb12, 1.2e+1, c)) = a * b + vnb12 * 1.2e+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
--- Comment #1 from Виталий Новичков ---
Created attachment 61787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61787&action=edit
The test code to be built with -std=c++98 argument.
Also: I am not fully sure WHEN this bug introduced and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I think the patch should be committed to all release branches (after some soak
time in the mainline to avoid surprises).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
Bug ID: 120931
Summary: At GCC 15.1.0 build fails with -std=c++98 on attempt
to use std::deque::resize() method
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #14 from Filip Kastl ---
If I do -fdump-tree-optimized, I see these two differences in function inl1100:
A has higher numerical error (3.09998e+02)| B has ok numerical error
(3.12012e+02)
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> Ah, nice. I had this during bootstrap but wasn't able to reduce yet.
you mean during bootstrap gcc itself? (I didn't see such issue when bootstrap
gcc b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7710d513a552f1fa1b7485ec6b318bafaa6d4cd7
commit r16-1914-g7710d513a552f1fa1b7485ec6b318bafaa6d4cd7
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Jul 1 17:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Ah, nice. I had this during bootstrap but wasn't able to reduce yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114665
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #35 from Greg Chandler ---
I have been unable to track this down at all...
I know it's in the driver, but past that all I can find is what is contained in
the messages on this post.
I've attempted to compile older versions of gcc to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120651 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120651
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
>
> Patch posted:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/688286.html
>
> That just fixes the tail recusion part. The tail call part I will post
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] RISC-V: |[15 Regression] RISC-V:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c1ed63e4c6b0f80dd47ce421dd7d80d52c38fd3
commit r16-1912-g9c1ed63e4c6b0f80dd47ce421dd7d80d52c38fd3
Author: Alexey Merzlyakov
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #2)
> could you please reduce the testing case to help me debug?
Will do. Might take some time as I'm not very familiar with `file` code base.
> Are you sure that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120930
Bug ID: 120930
Summary: [16 Regression] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O[23] with
zvl256b -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl since
r16-1645-g309dbcea2ca
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Bug 106749 depends on bug 119744, which changed state.
Bug 119744 Summary: [C++23] Implement P2711R1, Making multi-param constructors
of views explicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119744
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ncm at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I suspect '-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -fstack-protector-strong' are the primary
trigger.
Full flag list passed to compiler on this system (wrapper adds quite a few
related to stack protector):
extra flags be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120766
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Bug ID: 120929
Summary: [16 Regression] file-5.45 triggers stack protection
false positives since r16-1905-g7165ca43caf470
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120667
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Zaitsev from comment #4)
> Oh, great! Somehow I missed it. Sorry for the annoyance - next time, I need
> to read the documentation more carefully. Thank you for your help!
Also if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b599593af17f61fc8cf26ccf1c7e3fd4e83b221
commit r15-9901-g3b599593af17f61fc8cf26ccf1c7e3fd4e83b221
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Zaitsev ---
Yeah, I've read about this "timing profiling" but I wasn't able to find a
corresponding GCC compiler switch for that when I tried to search over this
phrase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So the details are hidden in
template
QGauss5::QGauss5 ()
:
Quadrature (QGauss5(), QGauss5<1>())
{}
with the following inlined
template <>
QGauss5<1>::QGauss5 ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Zaitsev ---
Oh, great! Somehow I missed it. Sorry for the annoyance - next time, I need to
read the documentation more carefully. Thank you for your help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #22)
> Should we add TARGET_FENTRY to default to -mfentry on Linux?
IMO --enable-fentry configure option would be better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
And it is already enabled by default with -fprofile-use so there is no need for
most users to add another option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC already does some of this even without PGO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120651
Alexey Merzlyakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.merzlyakov at samsung
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120928
Bug ID: 120928
Summary: Feature request: Temporal PGO support for GCC
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57d30924e2b3887a1aedc6102daa67bc3272ace7
commit r16-1910-g57d30924e2b3887a1aedc6102daa67bc3272ace7
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> Created attachment 61785 [details]
> A patch to warn -pg without -mfentry with shrink wrapping enabled
__fentry__ was added in 2010:
commit d22e4cc9397ed41534c9422d0b0ff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61786&action=edit
gcc16-pr120776-wip.patch
Very early WIP, this can just parse stuff, on say
struct S { int a, b, c; };
struct T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
Bug ID: 120927
Summary: [16 Regression] 510.parest_r segfaults built with
-Ofast -march=znver4 --param
vect-partial-vector-usage=1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|12.4.1
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
