[Bug middle-end/119507] only the comdat functions before normal functions get their own gcc_except_table section (unless using -ffunction-sections)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119507 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from Sam James --- (I

[Bug rtl-optimization/119160] wrong code with -O2 -finstrument-functions-once -favoid-store-forwarding -fnon-call-exceptions -fschedule-insns -mgeneral-regs-only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119160 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Known to work|

[Bug target/119865] [15/16 regression] RISC-V: ICE in g++.target/riscv/mv(c)-symbols[1-5].C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119865 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 See Also|

[Bug target/119865] [15/16 regression] RISC-V: ICE in g++.target/riscv/mv(c)-symbols[1-5].C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119865 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from Sam J

[Bug target/65248] Copy relocation against protected symbol doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/65248] Copy relocation against protected symbol doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maskray at google dot com,

[Bug c/119845] Something triggered by -march=native create code that is not compliant with floating point standards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119845 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- sorry, s/standard/on :)

[Bug c/119845] Something triggered by -march=native create code that is not compliant with floating point standards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119845 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- It's quite likely we'll switch to -ffp-contract=standard in future.

[Bug c++/88512] Too much STL in error output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512 --- Comment #14 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #13) > Is this the same error? https://github.com/sleuthkit/sleuthkit/issues/3272 This GCC bug is about noise in errors (being overly verbose), not about a failure to bu

[Bug target/119851] [12/13/14/15/16 regression] -O2 -Q --help=common suggests -ftree-vectorize is disabled by default (since r12-4240-g2b8453c401b699)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119851 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.4 Summary|[13/14/15/16 regres

[Bug target/119851] New: [13/14/15/16 regression] -O2 -Q --help=common suggests -ftree-vectorize is disabled by default (since r12-4240-g2b8453c401b699)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119851 Bug ID: 119851 Summary: [13/14/15/16 regression] -O2 -Q --help=common suggests -ftree-vectorize is disabled by default (since r12-4240-g2b8453c401b699) Product: gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/82956] Incorrect relocation emitted (symbol considered external) due to inlining and hidden visibility.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82956 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > The minimized testcase looks correct. > > This also might be a binutils/ld bug. -fuse-ld={lld,mold} gives the same: $ objdump -r a | grep _ZThn120_N14Gtid_log_eve

[Bug c/88382] undocumented GNU C extension: C++ raw string literals permitted in GNU C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88382 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119386] [14 Regression] [x64] Shared libraries can no longer be compiled with profiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 Regression][x64] |[14 Regression] [x64] |Sh

[Bug rust/119508] Hundreds of rust tests XPASS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org See Als

[Bug lto/119839] [15 regression] RISC-V gobmk performance regression with Node clones share order patch (bad LTO partitioning) since r15-6345-g0895aef01c64c3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119839 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Summary|RISC

[Bug cobol/119215] -Wodr and -Wlto-type-mismatch issues in cobol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119215 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- (For stage1, I'll handle richi's previous review and make that easier to do by integrating it with --{enable,disable}-werror or something.)

[Bug cobol/119215] -Wodr and -Wlto-type-mismatch issues in cobol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119215 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61146 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61146&action=edit 0001-config-add-Werror-lto-type-mismatch-odr-to-bootstrap.patch Easiest way is to apply this patch, then do: ./con

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #52 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61137 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61137&action=edit q.ii.xz This is a lot smaller but still pretty gross. Not reducing it further, but including in case it's of some

[Bug target/119834] [15 regression] Compiling harfbuzz 11.0.1 with gcc 15 20250413 fails on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119834 --- Comment #12 from Sam James --- Unfortunately I can't reproduce it yet. Could you show me `gcc -v`? (Wondering what --with-arch= is, especially, if anything.)

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #50 from Sam James --- It works!

[Bug target/119834] [15 regression] Compiling harfbuzz 11.0.1 with gcc 15 20250413 fails on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119834 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Can you show the full command line at least please? Need the flags.

[Bug target/119834] [15 regression] Compiling harfbuzz 11.0.1 with gcc 15 20250413 fails on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119834 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|Compil

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #49 from Sam James --- Trying it.

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #40 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61131 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61131&action=edit p.ii.xz Reduction is pretty slow, but: ``` $ g++ p.ii -w -flto=auto -O3 -shared p.ii: In function ‘MpRepeatedStri

[Bug middle-end/110282] Segmentation fault with specific optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110282 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- No problem -- you may want to do -Werror=return-type -Werror=uninitialized -Werror=sequence-point as well to reduce the chance of reducing to something bogus. (-Werror=return-type would catch that issue I menti

[Bug middle-end/110282] Segmentation fault with specific optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110282 --- Comment #11 from Sam James --- (In reply to mcccs from comment #10) Using the return value of e() when it didn't return anything is undefined.

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #39 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #38) > The testcase from comment 14 fails for me still with Martin's last patch as > well as Honza's. I'm reducing two variants of that.

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #38 from Sam James --- The testcase from comment 14 fails for me still with Martin's last patch as well as Honza's.

[Bug rtl-optimization/119786] UBSAN error in reorg.cc's note_delay_statistics index 2 out of bounds for type 'int [2]'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119786 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61129 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61129&action=edit pr119786.patch This patch together with the PR119785 fix survives bootstrap-ubsan with UBSAN_OPTIONS set to catch

[Bug rtl-optimization/119785] [12/13/14 Regression] UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119785 --- Comment #7 from Sam James --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Hopefully fixed on the trunk so far. Yes, fixed, thanks!

[Bug tree-optimization/116093] wrong code with -Og -ftree-vrp -fno-tree-dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116093 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||15.0 Known to fail|15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/119712] [14/15 Regression] compiler hang at -O{1,2,3,s} since r14-5109

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119712 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot com

[Bug target/119784] -mapxf saves registers beyond red zone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug cobol/119825] gcobol XML generate forces bug report

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119825 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Full backtrace: ``` $ gcobol xml.cbl cobol1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0x5e9b1e071134 internal_error(char const*, ...) /usr/src/debug/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./gcc-15.0./gcc/diagnosti

[Bug d/119826] [13/14/15 regression] ICE: verify_type failed: type variant differs by TYPE_MAX_VALUE with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119826 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.4 Summary|ICE: verify_type fa

[Bug lto/119816] Lto regression in 15-20250413 (worked in 15-20250407)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119816 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |WORKSFORME --- Comment #8 from Sam James -

[Bug c/119717] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119717 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/71094] Documentation: -fivopts is enabled at -O1+, -Os and -Ofast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71094 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #35 from Sam James --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #33) > The patch from comment #32 passes LTO-bootstrap and profiled-LTO-bootstrap > on x86_64-linux. I have asked Honza to look at it and comment, especially > on the de

[Bug lto/119816] Lto regression in 15-20250413 (worked in 15-20250407)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119816 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- The check at https://github.com/Kitware/CMake/blob/master/Modules/CheckIPOSupported.cmake which uses https://github.com/Kitware/CMake/tree/master/Modules/CheckIPOSupported doesn't seem to use any system librarie

[Bug lto/119816] Lto regression in 15-20250413 (worked in 15-20250407)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119816 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Ever confirmed|0

[Bug lto/119816] Lto regression in 15-20250413 (worked in 15-20250407)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119816 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/119815] [14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{1,2,3}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119815 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- -fno-ivopts works

[Bug rtl-optimization/119815] [14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{1,2,3}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119815 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.3

[Bug target/42683] gcc manpage: Description of x86 -march not clear regarding mmx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42683 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ismael at linux dot com --- Comment #22 fro

[Bug target/71268] [PATCH] Fix description of x86_64's -m32 option

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71268 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- Inverse-dupe of PR109954 as that contains the fix.

[Bug target/71268] [PATCH] Fix description of x86_64's -m32 option

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71268 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Sam James ---

[Bug tree-optimization/119614] [15 regression] protobuf-29.4 fails to build with -O2 (error: cannot tail-call: call and return value are different)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119614 --- Comment #29 from Sam James --- Will give the combination a whack. Can add in more as needed.

[Bug tree-optimization/119712] [14/15 Regression] compiler hang at -O{1,2,3,s} since r14-5109

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119712 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- *** Bug 119804 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/119804] [14/15 regression] compiler hang at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119804 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.3 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/119804] [14/15 regression] compiler hang at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119804 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/119803] [15 regression] ICE on valid code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_mask, at value-range.cc:2484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-14 Version|unknown

[Bug tree-optimization/119803] [15 regression] ICE on valid code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_mask, at value-range.cc:2484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug other/105404] Update in-tree copy of zlib to zlib-1.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105404 --- Comment #14 from Sam James --- https://forge.sourceware.org/sjames/gcc/commits/branch/sam-zlib

[Bug tree-optimization/119778] [13/14/15 regression] -Wuninitialized crashed with longjmp/setjmp since r13-2500

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119778 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14/15 regression] |[13/14/15 regression] |-W

[Bug rtl-optimization/119786] New: UBSAN error in reorg.cc's note_delay_statistics index 2 out of bounds for type 'int [2]'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119786 Bug ID: 119786 Summary: UBSAN error in reorg.cc's note_delay_statistics index 2 out of bounds for type 'int [2]' Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/119785] UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119785 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- I also see: ``` SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior /root/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.cc:12093:23 /root/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.cc:12093:23: runtime error: index 63 out of bounds for type '

[Bug rtl-optimization/119785] UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119785 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644797.html

[Bug rtl-optimization/119785] New: UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119785 Bug ID: 119785 Summary: UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimiza

[Bug rtl-optimization/119785] UBSAN errors in machmode.h on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119785 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- `~/gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-languages=c,c++,jit --disable-multilib --host=sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu --build=sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu --enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl --with-build-config="boots

[Bug c/83537] missing integer overflow in offsetof not diagnosed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83537 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug sanitizer/68065] Size calculations for VLAs can overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/119780] [13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{1,s} : runtime hang since r13-3688

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119780 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- -fno-tree-slsr works

[Bug tree-optimization/119780] [13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{1,s} : runtime hang since r13-3688

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119780 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14/15 regression] wrong |[13/14/15 regression] wrong

[Bug testsuite/119782] libgccjit test fails on hppa (FAIL: jit.dg/test-combination.c, initial compilation)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119782 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Ditto jit.dg/test-threads.c and jit.dg/test-types.c (combination...)

[Bug tree-optimization/119773] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{s,1,2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu since r11-6482

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119773 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14/15 regression]

[Bug jit/119783] libgccjit test test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe fails on hppa (verify_code: actual: "cannot tail-call: memory reference or volatile after call" != expected: "cannot tail-cal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119783 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug jit/119783] New: libgccjit test test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe fails on hppa (verify_code: actual: "cannot tail-call: memory reference or volatile after call" != expected: "cannot tai

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119783 Bug ID: 119783 Summary: libgccjit test test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe fails on hppa (verify_code: actual: "cannot tail-call: memory reference or volati

[Bug jit/119782] New: libgccjit test fails on hppa (FAIL: jit.dg/test-combination.c, initial compilation)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119782 Bug ID: 119782 Summary: libgccjit test fails on hppa (FAIL: jit.dg/test-combination.c, initial compilation) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keyw

[Bug tree-optimization/119780] [13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{1,s} : runtime hang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119780 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.4 Known to fail|

[Bug rust/119508] Hundreds of rust tests XPASS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- I'm not seeing it anywhere, and I consistently was before.

[Bug c++/119778] [13/14/15 regression] -Wuninitialized crashed with longjmp/setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119778 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15/15 regression] |[13/14/15 regression] |-W

[Bug c++/119778] [14/15/15 regression] -Wuninitialized crashed with longjmp/setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119778 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||13.3.1, 14.2.1, 15.0 Known to work|

[Bug c++/119778] [14/15/15 regression] -Wuninitialized crashed with longjmp/setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119778 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|gcc gi

[Bug c/113688] [14 regression] verify_type fails for compatible structs with FAM in C23, builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c and gnu23-tag-1.c with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|verify_type fails for |[14 regression] verify_type

[Bug tree-optimization/119773] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{s,1,2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119773 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > 11+ hangs at -O1. .. at runtime, that is. Anyway, bisecting.

[Bug tree-optimization/119773] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O{s,1,2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119773 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong code at -O{s,1,2,3} |[12/13/14/15 regression]

[Bug jit/119767] libgccjit fails on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119767 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Seems that Emacs fails with 10..trunk at least (not tried older than 10). The original Emacs report is with 14, but I've reproduced it with trunk. (If useful, SSH is available to a container on this machine tha

[Bug jit/119767] New: libgccjit fails on sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119767 Bug ID: 119767 Summary: libgccjit fails on sparc Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: testsuite-fail, wrong-code Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 --- Comment #26 from Sam James --- (In reply to mcccs from comment #25) > I used creduce and some de-namespacing and brought it to about 60k lines, I > hope to post the checkpoint soon Thank you! Even partial reductions often help a lot (though

[Bug target/87832] AMD pipeline models are very costly size-wise

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/117706] [15 regression] gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-[12].c XPASS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Running it manually, it looks like it still fails on arm indeed.

[Bug cobol/119759] LICENSE file in gcc/cobol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- I'm not sure why it's even BSD to begin with. I did try to ask on the ML but didn't get an answer. Besides, if it's part of GCC, the whole thing is GPL anyway.

[Bug modula2/119751] There's a need to tidy up m2 subdirectories' contents

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751 --- Comment #9 from Sam James --- (In reply to Zbigniew from comment #8) That sounds like it belongs in a new bug.

[Bug target/116242] [meta-bug] Tracker for zvl issues in RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/106618] C++ Option Summary shows `-fargs-in-order` instead of `-fstrong-eval-order`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106618 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/119757] [15 regression] RISC-V: ICE when building curl-8.13.0 (in operator[], at vec.h:910)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- -O2 -fno-vect-cost-model -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b fails

[Bug tree-optimization/119757] [15 regression] RISC-V: ICE when building curl-8.13.0 (in operator[], at vec.h:910)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|RISC-V

[Bug target/97585] Improve documentation for -march=x86-64 to say MMX, SSE, SSE2 are implied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug driver/119727] -freport-bug vs. ASLR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- Let's consider backporting this one after some time on trunk? It'd help us a lot with user reports and would mean we can default-enable -freport-bug downstream.

[Bug tree-optimization/93010] Wrong optimization: provenance affects comparison of saved bits of addresses of dead auto variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93010 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- Martin, just to check, did you want to confirm this (it's still UNCONFIRMED) or just add yourself to CC?

[Bug target/119731] bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61078|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/114431] bpf: GCC generates unverifiable code for systemd restrict_fs_bpf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Resolution|---

[Bug target/119731] bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61078 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61078&action=edit GCC failed output on test-bpf-restrict-fs

[Bug target/119731] bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61080 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61080&action=edit Clang successful output on test-bpf-restrict-fs

[Bug target/119731] bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61077 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61077&action=edit restrict-fs.bpf.c

[Bug target/119731] bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 61076 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61076&action=edit restrict-fs-gcc.bpf.i.xz

[Bug target/119731] New: bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 Bug ID: 119731 Summary: bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >