[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-04-27 Thread sjames at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bruno at clisp dot org --- Comment #5 from

[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-02-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-02-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So we agree this is INVALID?

[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-02-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > In the source, those 2 loops are > { > { gcv_object_t* offset = 0; > { uintWL count = oldsize; > do { > { object oldentry = > > *(gc

[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-02-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Or maybe oint, that is a typedef to uintP which I'd guess could be uintptr_t variant.

[Bug tree-optimization/118779] [15 Regression] clisp miscompilation since r15-580

2025-02-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118779 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0