[Bug testsuite/109146] Tail call prevention in frame-address.c is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109146 --- Comment #2 from David Spickett --- A detail that might be useful. The callee function uses UB because it compares pointers that don't point to the same object. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf 6.5.8 Relational oper

[Bug testsuite/109146] Tail call prevention in frame-address.c is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109146 --- Comment #1 from David Spickett --- Correction. https://godbolt.org/z/fW5nsWE5e shows the issue when "!=" is used, the previous link used "==" instead.

[Bug testsuite/109146] New: Tail call prevention in frame-address.c is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109146 Bug ID: 109146 Summary: Tail call prevention in frame-address.c is not correct Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/108691] [13 Regression] ICE with function ptr and setjmp/returns twice at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108691 --- Comment #11 from David Spickett --- Thanks for the quick fix! > That still leaves us with missing abnormal edges - David, was this reduced > from an actual program? Further to this, someone pointed out to me that an indirect call to setjm

[Bug tree-optimization/108691] [13 Regression] ICE with function ptr and setjmp/returns twice at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108691 --- Comment #7 from David Spickett --- > That still leaves us with missing abnormal edges - David, was this reduced > from an actual program? No, it's a simplified version of the C used to generate an LLVM IR test case: extern int setjmp(ptr);

[Bug c/108691] ICE when compiling for AArch64 with BTI protection at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108691 --- Comment #1 from David Spickett --- Output from freport-bug attached.

[Bug c/108691] New: ICE when compiling for AArch64 with BTI protection at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108691 Bug ID: 108691 Summary: ICE when compiling for AArch64 with BTI protection at -O1 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/108642] ACLE function __arm_wsr missing for AArch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108642 --- Comment #6 from David Spickett --- Thanks for the link, we'll try to use those when we detect g++.

[Bug target/108642] ACLE function __arm_wsr missing for AArch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108642 --- Comment #4 from David Spickett --- Of course, I was just looking at at assembly output in compiler explorer and then locally I didn't link the object. That's why it seemed to work. Compiling and linking I get: $ ./bin/aarch64-none-linux-gnu

[Bug c++/108642] New: ACLE function __arm_wsr missing when compiling in C++ mode for AArch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108642 Bug ID: 108642 Summary: ACLE function __arm_wsr missing when compiling in C++ mode for AArch64 Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug target/97349] New: Incorrect types for some Neon vdupq_n_<...> intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97349 Bug ID: 97349 Summary: Incorrect types for some Neon vdupq_n_<...> intrinsics Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon