https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119085
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|13.5
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119085
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
The testcases in this bug work now, but PR119085 still fails. I'll reopen it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121149
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Are you explicitly passing a flag to enable it? Please share your configure
line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
What platform is this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi "After changing a bug"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121138
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121126
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-source
--- Comment #2 from Sam James
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121045
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ahjqdpdjavw6h...@kam.mff.cuni.cz/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121110
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
There are several requirements on IFUNC resolvers. I wouldn't be surprised at
all if it can't work with alias.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
Indeed works too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|deferred|patch
--- Comment #27 from Sam James ---
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119356
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Thanks Jeff! r16-1750-g5111ea055f5699 works on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
FWIW, I've checked that this reproduces it in a Debian stable container too
(i.e. there's nothing special that the stage1 gcc-trunk/g++-trunk that CC/CXX
should point to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
--- Comment #20 from Sam James ---
You're a star, it works! I'll try it in the usual packaging environment next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #19 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #18)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 61837 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Please try this. No idea why it works for me.
>
> `./configure --w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> Created attachment 61837 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this. No idea why it works for me.
`./configure --with-tail-call-interp CFLAGS="-O2 -march=znver2 -ggdb3"`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Created attachment 61857 [details]
> reduced.i
>
> bisecting
with
char exists[256], frozen[256];
instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61857
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61857&action=edit
reduced.i
bisecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm reducing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059
Bug ID: 121059
Summary: [16 regression] ICE when building imagemagick-7.1.1-47
(vect_get_loop_mask, at tree-vect-loop.cc:10960)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Yes, I tried to go further but the compiler hangs with the needed param before
that commit for a large part of the range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987
--- Comment #23 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #20)
> Seems to be fixed by:
I've regtested this and it was fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61850
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61850&action=edit
localtime.c
Reduced it a bit more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
May have overreduced, sec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049
Bug ID: 121049
Summary: [16 regression] timezone-data miscompiled with -O3
-march=x86-64-v4 -mtune=znver4
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121045
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
You're sure it's not the other commit that rewrites discriminator handling?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
(In reply to pipcet from comment #16)
> I'm not sure it's really a duplicate of this one
I wouldn't worry too much about if it's marked as a dupe or not. Whoever fixes
this bug will likely add a testcase from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> The odd thing is this has been an issue for the last 5 years now, did Emacs
> code change recently to expose this issue?
I think it is a combination of:
* the str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> > Also it is not obvious from the Emacs bug report it is exactly this bug. It
> > could be another bug that is exposed b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Also it is not obvious from the Emacs bug report it is exactly this bug. It
> could be another bug that is exposed by SRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15/16 regression] gdb |[13/14/15/16 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #18 from Sam Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121036
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
With Qing's -fdiagnostics-details patch (not in trunk):
```
$ gcc a.c -O2 -Wall -Wextra -fdiagnostics-details -c
a.c: In function ‘virt_to_phys’:
a.c:79:84: warning: array subscript 4 is above array bounds of ‘c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #17)
> FWIW, with the candidate fix, and
> --with-specs='%{!mno-long-calls:-mlong-calls}
> %{!fno-function-sections:-ffunction-sections}'
TIL you can do that.
> on to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #15)
> also failed to build. -fprofile-generate isn't needed.
Ugh. Not sure why I keep making mistakes on this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Pengfei Li from comment #7)
> Hi Sam, sorry about the issue. I just followed your build steps (make
> command revised) but didn't reproduce it. I also tried valgrind but it
> exited with no error. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> $ make -j$(nproc) -l$(nproc)
This should read:
$ make -j$(nproc) -l$(nproc) STAGE1_C{,XX}FLAGS="-O3 -march=znver2 -ggdb3"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I'll bisect it now, I won't have a chance to try reduce until the weekend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Created attachment 61828 [details]
> genrecog.ii.xz
>
> genrecog.o itself is miscompiled.
$ g++ -std=c++14 -c -ggdb3 -o build/genrecog.o /tmp/genrecog.ii -O2
-fno-vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61828&action=edit
genrecog.ii.xz
genrecog.o itself is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
Bug ID: 121020
Summary: [16 regression] genrecog miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> It looks like the last commit this machine built python3.14t at was
> r16-1594-gb03e0d69b37f6e which predates preserve_none being added
> (r16-1692-g9804b23198b39f).
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
It looks like the last commit this machine built python3.14t at was
r16-1594-gb03e0d69b37f6e which predates preserve_none being added
(r16-1692-g9804b23198b39f).
We had a similar problem in PR120840.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Without -fprofile-generate:
│ 0001ed00 <_Py_Check_ArgsIterable>:
│ _Py_Check_ArgsIterable():
│ mov0x18(%rdx),%rax
│ cmpq $0x0,0xe8(%rax)
│ je 1ed20 <_Py_Check_ArgsIterable+0x20>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61824
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61824&action=edit
ceval.i.xz
ceval.o is broken.
```
$ gcc -c -fno-strict-overflow -O2 -mavx -mtune=znver2 -std=c11
-fvisibility=hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121015
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
This fails with just -O2:
```
union {
int i;
float f;
} int_as_float_u;
int render_result_from_bake_w, render_result_from_bake_h_seed_pass;
float *render_result_from_bake_h_primitive, *render_result_from_ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121015
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121015
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm reducing it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121015
Bug ID: 121015
Summary: [16 regression] ICE when building blender
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117468
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Matt Parks from comment #1)
> gcc-patches e-mail with changelog/test case/patch posted here but no
> replies: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687629.html
Just reply to it with "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61749|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Antoine Pitrou from comment #7)
For cases like this, a new bug is best, as it's not always the exact same
issue, and in any case is harder to miss in a new bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
See Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 120984, which changed state.
Bug 120984 Summary: [16 Regression] Bunch of 'insufficient space for an object
of type...' errors during ubsan bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120984
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120984
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109934
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #8)
> I am curious when the regression started to happen.
I think it's probably the same as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100#c1 (it got broken by a
back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118891
--- Comment #26 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 120965 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120965
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120964
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118891
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hanwei62 at huawei dot com
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120954
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #0)
> This small code snippet warns with r15-9921 (r15-9866 was still OK):
>
I can't seem to reproduce it at r15-9873, nor r15-9921. Can you double-check
please? (Or, bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120954
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
15.1: https://godbolt.org/z/3bM5bEY7b
14.3: https://godbolt.org/z/fahjWYEfr
13.4: https://godbolt.org/z/KK3bh5Gz4
12.4: https://godbolt.org/z/fM3c913qh
However, when compiling it as C++, I only see it on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120954
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #0)
> This small code snippet warns with r15-9921 (r15-9866 was still OK):
>
r15-9873-g06a26f4d643a5d warns for me.
```
$ git shortlog r15-9866-g8d600e98004b63..r15-9873-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120954
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #0)
> But this time I'm not very confident about that. Compiling this a C code
> doesn't warn.
It does for me, and it warns before Jakub's change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120949
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Not sure if missing something but I see a bunch of the changes in that commit
do it right (?) (as mentioned in the commit message), just some don't follow
that pattern.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120949
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61798&action=edit
readable.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120949
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120949
Bug ID: 120949
Summary: [16 regression] rejected with clang-20.1.7
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #26 from Sam James ---
I'm going to try clean it up with my poor C++, as I can't follow it at all
right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> Created attachment 61749 [details]
> small.cxx
OK, on this, with a small adjustment to change the two ""s as args to char*
str1, str2:
--- a/small.cxx.057t.local-fns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #24)
> @@ -1882,7 +1881,6 @@ IPA function summary for void ar::bc::operator++()
> [with aq = QStringView]/7
>calls:
Adding __attribute__((noipa)) on that template works.
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=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=120929
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Qing, is it the same glibc version in the arm64 environment vs the x86-64 one?
I think it might be what Sergei said:
> It still needs glibc, but if you would not be able to reproduce I'll
> preprocess it as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] False |[15/16 Regression] False
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #20)
> I'll backport to the gcc-15 branch after it marinates on trunk for a day or
> so, allowing various CIs to test it.
I don't know for certain, but you may need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48868
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Should we copy gcc.target/i386/math-torture for a new
> gcc.target/i386/tls-torture, and move testcases referencing __thread from
> gcc.target/i386 inside?
There are sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48868
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
dg-torture as suggested in
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/CAFiYyc2s-nBPwON-zLqprGUy_nNOZwHCq9LtK99M53=xk+j...@mail.gmail.com/
would help.
Should we copy gcc.target/i386/math-torture for a new
gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38749
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #5)
> you mean during bootstrap gcc itself? (I didn't see such issue when
> bootstrap gcc before committing my patches)
It was only with certain options, not reduced which ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120881
--- Comment #27 from Sam James ---
Thanks.
1 - 100 of 2641 matches
Mail list logo
