https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
placing sth at the nearest common dominator can increase register pressure and
cause extra spilling?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:918f4517564c2cf7e5bb907428d5413742bee56f
commit r16-2001-g918f4517564c2cf7e5bb907428d5413742bee56f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120948
Bug ID: 120948
Summary: Cannot detect potential division-by-zero when
numerator is 1 and denominator is variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120858
--- Comment #6 from Simon H. ---
Three equivalent functions, FWIW:
```
uint32_t crc_04C11DB7_u64(uint32_t crc, uint64_t w) {
return __crc32d(crc, w);
}
uint32_t crc_04C11DB7_clmul_u64(uint32_t crc, uint64_t x) {
constexpr uint64_t k1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120947
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Renze Lin from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Also can you provide the full output of "gcc -v" ?
>
> The output is
> """
> (base) root@ef26e3b1bbd5:/GCC-15-COVERA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e16820d4f7ab1d8a40f70beef722e6f8a4c2392c
commit r16-2000-ge16820d4f7ab1d8a40f70beef722e6f8a4c2392c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
--- Comment #4 from Renze Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Also can you provide the full output of "gcc -v" ?
The output is
"""
(base) root@ef26e3b1bbd5:/GCC-15-COVERAGE/bin# ./gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #459 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
OK, so 3e0299ab538700df912479d8da6fc3f32fde9dd2 SH: Tighten memory predicates
and constraints is not required for a successful GCC bootstrap. I have not
verified yet though whether it's required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
--- Comment #3 from Renze Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce this with the released version of GCC 15.1.0 .
>
> What options are you passing to GCC?
The options is "-x c++ -std=c++23"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119172
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116809
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119172
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d57ab56981cf085480df21f602dacb7f3cf3e49
commit r12-11249-g6d57ab56981cf085480df21f602dacb7f3cf3e49
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116809
--- Comment #35 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c4135438a6b100f27968a3fda41e580dba61b52
commit r12-11247-g4c4135438a6b100f27968a3fda41e580dba61b52
Author: Mark Mentovai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
huyubiao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||h13958451065 at 163 dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #19 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #17)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #16)
> > I feel that propagating the size through _5 = *_1 might not be correct in
> > general, we should only limi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120947
Bug ID: 120947
Summary: __builtin_object_size should understand allocations
pointed by pointers within a struct
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120807
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
r16-1998.
Will backport if no objection in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120807
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c24213ec117b889342913482faad2c7ba0fe7fd
commit r16-1999-g1c24213ec117b889342913482faad2c7ba0fe7fd
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Jul 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://github.com/google/autofdo/issues/248
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120867
Bug 120867 depends on bug 120938, which changed state.
Bug 120938 Summary: discriminators are not useful in statements doing multiple
calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120935
pietro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|16.0|15.1.0
--- Comment #3 from pietro ---
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.5.0
Summary|ICE: in adjust
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-04
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120575
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120877
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced:
```
v1 v = 5;
get>(v) =5;
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120684
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120716
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a better fix, rounding up to the next multiple of the alignment:
const auto block_size = ((bytes + alignment - 1) / alignment) * alignment;
The codegen isn't great for this though, as the compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120716
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:387cc9f80fcfd8b7d3fc142ef01bb05a46f0f244
commit r16-1992-g387cc9f80fcfd8b7d3fc142ef01bb05a46f0f244
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120748
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9549b5ee8496af12bac3ebfa3ec0aa8487fb725
commit r16-1991-ge9549b5ee8496af12bac3ebfa3ec0aa8487fb725
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although this means we'll never use some pool sizes. For allocate(48, 8) it
would be fine to use the 48-byte pool but max(bit_ceil(48), 8) would mean we
use the 64-byte pool instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this should work:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc
@@ -1247,7 +1247,7 @@ namespace pmr
synchronized_pool_resource::
do_allocate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.2|12.5
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120199
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120874 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed950a9ed384389ff07ac793b7065abe31bcae3f
commit r12-11245-ged950a9ed384389ff07ac793b7065abe31bcae3f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3689dc2061481fa789dbf7b6ab55a8e5f52f198
commit r13-9783-gf3689dc2061481fa789dbf7b6ab55a8e5f52f198
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3db50e3a41af53f87e94cd31e86f63126b8
commit r14-11876-gf3db50e3a41af53f87e94cd31e86f63126b8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9c43140bee94587cd60c8476db8c0e699206841
commit r15-9920-gf9c43140bee94587cd60c8476db8c0e699206841
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc90649466a54ab61926d88500a05f59a55cb055
commit r16-1990-gdc90649466a54ab61926d88500a05f59a55cb055
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|14.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118130
Bug 118130 depends on bug 108487, which changed state.
Bug 108487 Summary: [12/13 Regression] ~20-30x slowdown in populating
std::vector from std::ranges::iota_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120859
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this file just needs `/* { dg-do compile } */`
>
> I will check tomorrow.
I actually think this is the correct fix:
```
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120855
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mcore-elf |mcore-elf, nvptx
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
--- Comment #5 from Jesse T ---
Moved to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #22 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
I'm pretty confident about bootstrap-ubsan because I do that as part of testing
my objsz patches (but on x86_64) but I could wait a bit longer I guess. I'm
digging a bit into bug 120929 too, so maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
/opt/compiler-explorer/riscv64/gcc-15.1.0/riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu/15.1.0/../../../../riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/as
-v --traditional-format -march=rv64imafdc_zicsr_zife
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120943
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
--- Comment #3 from Jesse T ---
Yes when using gcc -S they produce the same output between versions, assembling
that output produces the correct result on binutils 2.44 even thought when gcc
invokes the assembler its wrong. The reason I thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 16 so far
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> Yes, compatibility with old glibc is a concern, considering this can be
> difficult to test, and failures can be largely silent.
What are your suggestions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 14.3.0 and 15.1.0 produces almost the same .s file even.
The assembler as I mentioned is part of the GNU binutils project which is a
seperate project even if many of the developers of GCC work on binuti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
Bug ID: 120946
Summary: GCC emits compressed instruction with .option arch, -c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> And
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936-10.c check-function-bodies foo
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936-11.c check-function-bodies foo
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118948
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118948
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simple fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index 47492575d00..8867540243b 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -15224,7 +15224,7 @@ bool
tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #458 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
OK, 51c41253e9ddd7457b4de710ea5271ef564833fd SH: Pin input args to hard-regs
via predicates for sfuncs is required for
0853a85ba96fa8642aac5315812c26a41966fede SH: Try to reduce R0 live ranges.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #457 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have performed some tests now.
The patch to reduce the R0 lifetimes is definitely still required:
0853a85ba96fa8642aac5315812c26a41966fede SH: Try to reduce R0 live ranges
Without it, I'm s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61796&action=edit
gcc16-pr120940.patch
Brown paper bag time, very sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120369
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cb1108c0929311f73fc9210d29681ba49607b8d
commit r15-9918-g2cb1108c0929311f73fc9210d29681ba49607b8d
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120806
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The implementation in libstdc++ is the one called "friendly" in the P1132R8
paper. This was clearly intended to be allowed:
"Teams eager to squeeze out performance realize they can only do this by
relying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120806
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This deviation from the standard is intentional, and was part of the original
design, and was present in the reference implementation:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p1132r8.html#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #17 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #12)
> > This is interesting here's the IR dump right after objsz:
> >
> > The key bit is:
> >
> > map2_4 = __b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> It is more understanding how floating point works and gave a rounding step.
> And that fma does the multiple and addition in infinite precision and only
> roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120716
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120945
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Porlbem goes away with
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
index d1a55dbcbcb..52ca189531e 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
@@ -25012,9 +25012,8 @@ add_call_src_coords_attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120945
Bug ID: 120945
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity with std::bind_front
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #16 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #12)
> This is interesting here's the IR dump right after objsz:
>
> The key bit is:
>
> map2_4 = __builtin_malloc (8);
> pin_pointer (&buf);
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
Bug ID: 120944
Summary: Incorrect optimization with accessing a volatile
structure member
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Looking at the diff there seems to few changes:
- # d.C:16:2
- .loc 1 16 2 is_stmt 1 view .LVU16
+ # d.C:15:8
+ .loc 1 15 8 is_stmt 1 discriminator 1 view .LVU16
This is a line table
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:612690936f5ddd122b60cf843cb4f40ae7ede436
commit r15-9917-g612690936f5ddd122b60cf843cb4f40ae7ede436
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61795&action=edit
Diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61794&action=edit
bad assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61793&action=edit
good assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #14)
> (In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> > Here's a super-minimal test case:
> >
> thanks for the smaller testing case, it has the same behavior as the one
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Even smaller set of example. Bad profile:
#include
volatile int variablev;
static void inc()
{
variablev++;
}
static int zero = 0;
int main ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #14 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> Here's a super-minimal test case:
>
thanks for the smaller testing case, it has the same behavior as the one Sergei
provided in comment #7: O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also can you provide the full output of "gcc -v" ?
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
