https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120677
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> s/gsi_start_bb/gsi_after_labels/ ?
Yes looking at other locations that do that it is that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120677
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is obvious:
gimple_stmt_iterator si = gsi_start_bb (output_crc->bb);
gsi_insert_before (&si, call, GSI_SAME_STMT);
This will insert before labels.
I am not in front of computer to recommend the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|16.0|15.2
Summary|[16 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
Target Milestone|15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59786
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this was fixed a few weeks ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109045
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #2)
> GCC doesn't print anything and doesn't take the assumption into account, but
> Clang prints:
>
> warning: assumption is ignored because it contains (potential
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-13
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120641
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120641
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pierre Ossman from comment #4)
> The error didn't indicate anything in our code, so I assumed this was
> entirely a standard library issue.
Has a reference to
GestureHandler::GHTouch
In the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120641
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is not unwanted. The abi is changed between 6 and 7 (fixed
to be following the specs). And we are warning about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118444
Bug 118444 depends on bug 115606, which changed state.
Bug 115606 Summary: C++ front-end marks the return slot as addressable early on
which prevents tail call being marked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
>- why return slot opt at the gimple level is target specific?
TO answer this question is simple, RSO is only for aggregates that returns in
memory. Which happens for Foo for the arm target. While on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82705
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a reduced testcase for aarch64:
```
class Foo {
public:
int a, b[1024];
Foo(int a, int b);
};
Foo __attribute__((noinline,noclone,noipa))
callee (int i);
Foo __attribute__((noinline,noclone,noi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57485
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland.illig at gmx dot de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57485
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> *** Bug 104316 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Funny I Did the same analysis there as I have here :). Without realizing it
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57485
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #7)
> There are crashes also on arm64 and ppc64le, while compiling stage1
> libstdc++:
>
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/devel:gcc:next/gcc16/
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[16 regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Since this happening during the building of gengtype, you could reduce the
enable languages down to just `c,c++` at least that will speed up the building
that way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120569
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120627
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94511
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61618&action=edit
Patch which I am testing for the aarch64 issue
This also improves:
```
struct s1 { int x[1024]; };
struct s1 gs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120519
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Please always post all patches to gcc-patches@, and never ever commit
> anything
> to config/rs6000 without approval by its maintainers!
It was posted:
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing tail calls for |Missing tail calls for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61615
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61615&action=edit
Semi reduced, removed some unneeded code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61614
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61614&action=edit
Testcase GodBolt link
Next time please attach or place inline the testcase instead of JUST linking to
GodBolt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC 15.1.0 and MacOS|[15/16 Regression]
|M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120619 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120619
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
fn = gimple_call_fn (stmt);
/* Functions with the attribute are by definition irrevocable. */
if (is_tm_irrevocable (fn))
return true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120619
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ ./cc1 -fsanitize=thread -fgnu-tm t.c
f
Analyzing compilation unit
Performing interprocedural optimizations
<*free_lang_data> {heap 1116k} {heap 1116k}
{heap 1116k} {heap 1392k} {h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120616
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jia-Xien Fang from comment #3)
> Is there any ways to perform the cast for the parameter without using
> -fno-strict-aliasing?
The issue is not the cast but what type the load and store are don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120613
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> (In reply to P. Ruber from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > > or might it be a dup of bug 98845 . Both were fixed in Feburary .
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120616
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
changing the type of the compound literal to `long[]` instead of `long long[]`
works.
Also using -fno-strict-aliasing also allows the code to do the "right thing".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120615
Bug ID: 120615
Summary: Remove pstl ?
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120614
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120614
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120611
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Clang exposes __invoke but it is private:
:2:35: error: '__invoke' is a private member of '(lambda at
:2:18)'
2 | return decltype([]{return 42;})::__invoke();
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120611
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well _FUN is in the implementation defined namespace so I am not sure this if
this is just a provided extension ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.0
Summary|diagnostic_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120532
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly reduced:
```
#include
using my_func = void(int) &&;
int main()
{
std::reference_wrapper a;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120609
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if libdfp has been updated for the new printf functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|error: ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120600
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> I just tried a bootstrap with flags "-g -O3 -march=znver3"
> with ASAN and UBSAN switched on and got the following:
>
> trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120605
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120536
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
My reduced testcase has been failing even in GCC 3.4.6.
Starting in GCC 4.7.1 GCC does give an error message before the ICE though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Keywords|needs-so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120599
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120599
Bug ID: 120599
Summary: [16 Regression] Copy prop for aggregates loses
non-call exception
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: EH, wrong-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120597
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61604&action=edit
testcase without the >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120539
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
void f(int b) {
for (auto &friend = 1;;)
;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|Segm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|ICE: tree check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery, |ice-on-valid-code
|ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I'm pretty sure it's distinct though.
It seems like it since it still fails on the trunk even after the patch to fix
PR120502 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-std=c++20 is enough for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[12/13/14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120595
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61603
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61603&action=edit
Testcase that is valid
1 - 100 of 7163 matches
Mail list logo
