https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
Uros writes:
> if ((diff > 0) != ((cf < 0) != (ct < 0) ? cf < 0 : cf < ct))
Crikey. IMHO that would fail any code review I took part in.
I think a truth table or some explanatory comment would help.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120636
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120636
Bug ID: 120636
Summary: -O3 runtime problems with recent gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> Bootstrapping now. It will take 6-12 hours to complete.
Completed with success with flags "-g -O2 -march=znver3".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> David, can you please bootstrap with the attached patch?
Bootstrapping now. It will take 6-12 hours to complete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> Unfortunately I
> have very limited knowledge on how to fix signed overflow, so I would really
> appreciate some help here.
Suggest use a type with more bits i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
This bug also occurs if the compile flags are changed to "-g -O2
-march=znver3".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
Bug ID: 120604
Summary: runtime error in i386/i386-expand.cc:3612:
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> This boils down to
> struct S {
> unsigned int s;
> S () : s (0) {}
> constexpr S &operator= (const S &) = default;
> };
> i.e. when the default ctor is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> As jwakely explained before, you cannot use git blame and friends on a
> shallow clone.
Oh dear, this again.
It might be worth mentioning on page https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
Bug ID: 120554
Summary: libgcobol meets clang
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pzheng at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #11)
> But I really wonder if it's possible to come up with an example where using
> ++it is actually faster, in some significant way, than using it++.
Putting sle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #9)
> This was an interesting exercise.
Good.
> cppcheck was a bit snide about using ++/-- prefix notation for iterators
> rather than the postfix notation, givin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #8)
> Jim has repaired some of them. I don't know which.
See comment 1.
> So, in order for cppcheck to be useful, especially in the face of its
> extensive config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #6)
> I don't know what I am doing differently, or why I am seeing errors that
> you're not.
Instead of trying to duplicate my results, you could try just fixing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
cppcheck says a lot of things that are true but not useful.
I use the following grep command to find the more interesting material:
grep -E "performance:| error:| warning:| style:" filename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120326
Bug ID: 120326
Summary: problems with attribute __ms_struct__
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #2)
> David, I am not familiar with cppcheck. I have installed it, but when I try
> to run it I don't see what you are describing here.
>
> Can you tell me how to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120285
Bug ID: 120285
Summary: ice in digest_init_r, at cp/typeck2.cc:1397
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120055
Bug ID: 120055
Summary: ice in convert_arguments with recent compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Another test case, from csmith, is:
long func_46___trans_tmp_17;
char(safe_rshift_func_int8_t_s_s)(char);
void(safe_lshift_func_int32_t_s_s)(int);
void(safe_mod_func_int64_t_s_s)(long);
static void func_4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119612
Bug ID: 119612
Summary: gcc.dg/pr106465.c newly re-broken
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #12 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> > Did this ever happen ?
> >
> > Similar test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_1-26.c
> > still seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
Bug ID: 119324
Summary: cppcheck meets /cobol/
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
Bug ID: 119323
Summary: cppcheck meets libgcobol
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98904
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman ---
I confirm that the problem seems to have gone away.
I used this configure script:
CC="gcc -g1 -O3 -march=znver3" CXX="g++ -g1 -O3 -march=znver3" \
../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc/results.$DATE.valgr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115316
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
As of today, 20250310, still broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119200
Bug ID: 119200
Summary: valgrind error in gfc_format_decoder
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119199
Bug ID: 119199
Summary: valgrind error in translate_common
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
Bug ID: 119157
Summary: ice in gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state, at
fortran/symbol.cc:4459
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixed.
Thanks for that. I notice that the commit doesn't seem
to add a test case to the test suite. Worth doing ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118756
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #6)
> The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d05b64bdd048ffb7f72d97553888934a9bcd13fa
>
> commit r15-7792-gd05b64bdd048ffb7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> Another bootstrap with "-g -O3 -march=znver3" is now running.
That passed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> I will try to do the bootstrap over the weekend.
Bootstrap passed.
Another bootstrap with "-g -O3 -march=znver3" is now running.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Hopefully fixed (but haven't tried UBSAN bootstrap for this, please reopen
> if it is not fixed).
I don't seem able to reopen this bug.
If the bootstrap hasn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be:
struct zw_value {
~zw_value();
};
void __trans_tmp_1() {
for (; auto val = __trans_tmp_1;) {
switch (0)
case 0:;
zw_value cst;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> This is almost certainly a dupe of PR118822.
>
> Is there a `while ( x = y )` or similar on that line?
No. Just a "}" as the error message indicates.
Surroundin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
Bug ID: 118847
Summary: ice in pop, at vec.h:1056
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> With export
> UBSAN_OPTIONS="halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1:
> print_stacktrace=1", you should be able to get a nice backtrace. You can
> drop th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116948
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
Bug ID: 118819
Summary: runtime error: signed integer overflow during
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note you might also want to use -fno-checking for the trunk.
Thanks for the tip. Still a 26 times expansion.
foundBugs $ time ../results/bin/gcc -c -w -g -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801
Bug ID: 118801
Summary: Excessive compile time with -g -O2 -fpeel-loops
-fno-var-tracking
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118786
Bug ID: 118786
Summary: more wrong code with -finline-small-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to start sometime between 20241217 and 20241231:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241217/bin/gcc -O3 -w bug1086.c &&
./a.out
checksum = E0BB38EE
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241231
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> I will look into a bisection.
The problem seems to exist sometime before 20241231 with g:0b06abe027a78681
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
The original code is from csmith, so:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w -O1 bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 >
/tmp/1
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I will look into a bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Bug ID: 118758
Summary: [15 regression] ok code with -O2, but wrong code with
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118756
Bug ID: 118756
Summary: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc:1156: Function defined but not
used
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118695
Bug ID: 118695
Summary: ice in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:6476
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
Also before 2024-04-01:
foundBugs $ ../results.d8cf8917ed3d7e07/bin/gcc -c -w -g -O3 bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep/in.39468.c:1246:5: intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Bug still exists some 8 weeks earlier at 2024-09-15:
foundBugs $ ../results.5f0a381801b754db/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist at date 2024-11-10:
foundBugs $ ../results.32cf28ccc9e77ce0/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep/in.39468.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist two weeks earlier (2024-12-08):
foundBugs $ ../results.be8d1a358e3abc50/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b63840e07132f72.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> > The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
>
> Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b6384
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be:
short g_72, g_173;
int g_100[];
int func_1___trans_tmp_9;
short(safe_sub_func_int16_t_s_s)(short si1, short si2) { return si1 - si2; }
void func_1() {
for (; g_173; g_173 = saf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Bug ID: 118653
Summary: ice in vectorizable_live_operation, at
tree-vect-loop.cc:11573
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118629
Bug ID: 118629
Summary: ice in cp_parser_expression_statement, at
cp/parser.cc:13584
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
Bug ID: 118628
Summary: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc:10642: Possible read of
uninitialised data ?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Bug ID: 118627
Summary: gcc/omp-general.cc:4197: Possible read of
uninitialised data ?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118606
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> What is confusing about that?
It's a matter of style. Clang considers that some style boundary has been
stepped over in the original case.
> Is that any d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118606
Bug ID: 118606
Summary: gcc/omp-general.cc:3294: Possible precedence problem
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118605
Bug ID: 118605
Summary: gcc/tree-assume.cc:108: dangling field problem
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118604
Bug ID: 118604
Summary: gcc/cp/parser.cc:51316: Non clear code produces clang
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118558
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 60208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60208&action=edit
C source code
Reduced C code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118558
Bug ID: 118558
Summary: csmith: another runtime error with march=znver3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117342
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12)
> Please include the .s file referenced, config.log for the corresponding GCC,
> and `as --version`.
Problem seems to have gone away:
~ $ vi cq.cc
~ $ for i in /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118333
Bug ID: 118333
Summary: gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:24871: Pointless
condition ?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Newest range is g:32a3f46ca5437261 .. g:a54aa75ab30eb1a1,
which is 30 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
> dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
>
> This is 476 commits. I will run a bisec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
This is 476 commits. I will run a bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
Bug ID: 118269
Summary: ice in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.cc:6901
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118181
Bug ID: 118181
Summary: gcc/lto-ltrans-cache.cc:312: Avoid call by value for
large objects
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #22 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21)
> Try -fno-ipa-cp
As expected, that avoids the problem too:
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/gcc -O1 -w bug1071.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #20 from David Binderman ---
>From the See also bug report, # 118138,
I tried out -fno-inline and, for the two test cases here,
the problem seemed to go away.
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/gcc -O1 -w bug1071.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #17 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> AFAIK -w suppresses -Werror=uninitialized.
-w also appears to switch off -Werror=overflow.
This makes csmith a lot less useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
For the first test case, the reduced code seems to be:
void printf(...);
int crc32_tab[256];
int crc32_context = 4294967295, g_27, g_64, g_90 = 3, func_2___trans_tmp_4,
main_i, main_j, main_l_1486_0_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> I have a bisection running.
Current bisect range seems to be g:7f4f49687b1f1b7a .. g:40e5636e086e51f5
This is 22 commits. Most of it seems to be RISC-V r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 59917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59917&action=edit
C source code
Second test case from more runs of csmith.
It has the same fault in the same git range.
I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> Ah, sorry, I see it on the original with -O2. I don't see it on the reduced
> one (though it was invalid anyway). OK.
It looks as if my reduction was invalid. My
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> ... ditto the original. So maybe fixed already?
I think not. I just checked today's gcc trunk and the problem
seems to still exist in the original code.
The git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code:
void printf(...);
int crc32_tab[256];
int crc32_context = 4294967295, g_27, g_64, g_90 = 3, func_2___trans_tmp_4,
main_i, main_j;
int *g_26 = &g_27;
char g_76 = 232;
void crc32_byte(ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
Bug ID: 118097
Summary: recent bug with -O2, but not -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117258
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> That is a different issue unrelated to this issue here can you file it
> seperately?
Done:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828
Bug ID: 117828
Summary: -g and error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117762
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Five more little problems in libgrust:
trunk/libgrust/libproc_macro_internal/group.cc:28:32: performance: Function
parameter 'stream' should be passed by const reference. [passedByValue]
trunk/libgrust/li
1 - 100 of 1210 matches
Mail list logo
