https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120609
--- Comment #4 from Marc Adams ---
A simpler report would have been "printf fails for decimal constant".
Statement printf(" %Df ",2.0dd) produces output "%Df" on my system. That
basic statement should work on any system. It should be "nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
--- Comment #1 from Marc Adams ---
I tested my larger program on a wide range of input values and it only failed
when it converted integer value '9825' to Decimal128 then divide by '1'. A
work-around could be to convert int to double then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120702
Bug ID: 120702
Summary: Extraneous string constant at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #9 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Hi@all, thank you for your interesting replies.
I guess the problem for the mapper and templates is that there are no pragma
templates in C++. So this would probably indeed mean that one would have to
ch
||2025-06-18
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The 2 bug reports i linked in the see also deals with string_cst not inside a
const_decl and if we ever fix this, those 2 might be fixed in a similar
fashion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117784
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61661&action=edit
gcc16-pr117784-wip.patch
Untested patch for the easy part of the paper (namely allowing constexpr and
constini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120652
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #1 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116320
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a20ad9351c64c6dc6b65c0ff2c465adb941b6a0
commit r12-11206-g0a20ad9351c64c6dc6b65c0ff2c465adb941b6a0
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #15 from cuilili ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> Thanks Lili. I am happy to test a patch (I am not sure if just that assert
> should go, or if it is that same assert in various places), or to just
> workaround it local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116320
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b4e1abd36acdf30c6f3808ad89ba55f835ff16b
commit r12-11205-g6b4e1abd36acdf30c6f3808ad89ba55f835ff16b
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8027d611bf76ed73614c5f126b046d140047f74
commit r12-11204-ga8027d611bf76ed73614c5f126b046d140047f74
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120587
--- Comment #3 from Stafford Horne ---
One comment left by Dimitar on the mail chain was:
> Another patch I intend to merge tomorrow will tighten the checks even
> more: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/685837.html
>
> Seein
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120655
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
actly to do here AFAIK.
1 - Yes, I agree this is a weird corner case.
2 - I have checked c++ N4917 draft, and indeed did not find anything about what
exactly we need to do in this case.
I guess the example cppreference presented is misleading. And other compilers
do hacks to make it work?
So can we say this is not a bug and close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120637
--- Comment #3 from Antony Lewis ---
I tested just removing the was_finalization test, and it seems to work. This is
basically reverting the change in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=1a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
--- Comment #24 from Antony Lewis ---
It seems these are related: In 15.1.1 reverting the finalization state tracking
in the fix for this PR seems to solve #PR120637, now without introducing leak
for the case test here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
> If you are asking for a new OpenMP feature, this is not the right forum,
> GCC bugzilla is for reporting bugs.
While I want to echo what Jakub wrote, I have nonetheless filed the OpenMP
specification issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120701
Bug ID: 120701
Summary: ICE at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_range,
at value-range.cc:1546
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120673
--- Comment #4 from Gaius Mulley ---
$ cat cyclictypes4.mod
MODULE cyclictypes4 ;
TYPE
A = B ;
B = C ;
C = D ;
D = A ;
VAR
v: A ;
BEGIN
END cyclictypes4.
$ gm2 -c cyclictypes4.mod
cyclictypes4.mod:4:4: error: circular depende
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120544
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jan Beulich
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd020583b649158b2939350be03ff31af797ba9a
commit r15-9843-gbd020583b649158b2939350be03ff31af797ba9a
Author: Jan Beulich
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120544
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Beulich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a2af290155e0e6ad73aadf178c1a1860223be4
commit r16-1556-ge1a2af290155e0e6ad73aadf178c1a1860223be4
Author: Jan Beulich
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The reason why it is invalid is that T lookup fails in the declare mapper >
> definition.
Yes, And that exactly is the problem.
> #pragma omp declare mapper(myvec v) map(v, v.data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason why it is invalid is that T lookup fails in the declare mapper
definition.
You can't take the T literally from the OpenMP standard, that is a a
non-literal for any type of certain properties.
Say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Also the Openmp specification for mapper says:
https://www.openmp.org/spec-html/5.2/openmpsu61.html
A structure type T has a predefined default mapper that is defined as if by a
declare mapper
The quest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Schulz ---
oh of course withotu std, so
typedef myvec doublevec;
If one has to specify the datatype explicitly before one can use the openmp
mapper, then the mapper pragma of openmp makes not much sense with templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Hi there,
if that testcase is "invalid", then that means that the mapper statement does
not work with template classes at all
It would mean that for a struct with a template datatype
template
struct my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #14 from cuilili ---
Created attachment 61659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61659&action=edit
Update estcase for the patch.
Thanks for the reminder.
Added #c7 as a new testcase for the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |lili.cui at intel dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to cuilili from comment #12)
> Created attachment 61658 [details]
> 0001-x86-Handle-fstack-clash-protection-for-shrink-wrap-s.patch
>
> I have reproduced and solved this problem locally. It would be gr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #12 from cuilili ---
Created attachment 61658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61658&action=edit
0001-x86-Handle-fstack-clash-protection-for-shrink-wrap-s.patch
I have reproduced and solved this problem locally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Declare mapper support has been added to GCC for C++ only in GCC 16, with
r16-983-g48973e8783e59462ab6e34d5d48b74a2146a05f1
And your testcase is invalid and correctly rejected by trunk:
pr120682.C:8:34: erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Thanks Lili. I am happy to test a patch (I am not sure if just that assert
should go, or if it is that same assert in various places), or to just
workaround it locally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120699
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dkm at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120700
Bug ID: 120700
Summary: -with-system-libunwind not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120699
Bug ID: 120699
Summary: ./configure --enable-languages documentation skips
rust
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120698
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Дилян Палаузов from comment #0)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/configure.html says:
>
> > --enable-vtable-verify[default]
>
> which means, that by default vtable-verify is enabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120698
Bug ID: 120698
Summary: ./configure - unclear default for vtable-verify
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #10 from cuilili ---
Thanks Sam and Sergei,
I created a patch to remove this assertion. However, validating this patch
requires running many tests, and if all goes well, it will take 1-2 days to fix
this issue.
()
???:0
0xbcdc1b thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns()
???:0
0xbce434 rest_of_handle_thread_prologue_and_epilogue(function*)
???:0
0xbce483 (anonymous
namespace)::pass_thread_prologue_and_epilogue::execute(function*)
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
--- Comment #15 from Haochen Jiang ---
After some "quick" trial, I would like to say it might not be that easy for
backend to handle this if the (x-t) are widely used afterwards in the code,
where t could be any integer offset, since compiler mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Ah, thank you Sergei!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Please try:
~/git/gcc/configure CFLAGS="-O2 -fstack-clash-protection" CXXFLAGS="-O2
-fstack-clash-protection" BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -fstack-clash-protection"
BOOT_CXXFLAGS="-O2 -fstack-clash-protection" CFLAGS_FOR_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120631
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3002d664d1137844c714645a841a48ab57d0eaa
commit r16-1555-gf3002d664d1137844c714645a841a48ab57d0eaa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> 9380 gcc_assert (!crtl->shrink_wrapped_separate);
>
> It hits this assert which is added by the patch, maybe this assert is not
> needed.
I mean it's added by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
It bootstraps for me without --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto'.
Does it work with --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3' or
--with-build-config='bootstrap-lto'?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61657
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61657&action=edit
adler32.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Bug ID: 120697
Summary: [16 regression] Bootstrap fails in
ix86_expand_prologue
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
-fno-shrink-wrap is fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120696
Bug ID: 120696
Summary: ICE: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1
elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16758
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120695
Bug ID: 120695
Summary: internal compiler error: in import_export_decl, at
cp/decl2.cc:3569
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Could you retry on trunk? This might be a dupe of bug 120661.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 120661 ***
Yes, it's fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119933
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn,
from Sam James ---
*** Bug 120694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Could you retry on trunk? This might be a dupe of bug 120661.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 120661 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
stuck in the loop of ranger_cache::propagate_cache for niters.5_40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
Bug ID: 120694
Summary: endless compile in ranger at expand
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120661
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120661
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9244ea4bf556381d3f7fb66154dc8944ebeb005c
commit r16-1550-g9244ea4bf556381d3f7fb66154dc8944ebeb005c
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ppalka at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|14.1.0, 15.0|
Summary|[12/13 Regression] T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108848
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 116418, which changed state.
Bug 116418 Summary: [12 Regression] statement expressions as initializer for
decltype auto breaks in templates with optimization turned on and debug info
turned on due to gstatement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116418
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116418
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2230c7a505d88ac5fa6f85d7da5fb3a2e09a4cba
commit r12-11202-g2230c7a505d88ac5fa6f85d7da5fb3a2e09a4cba
Author: Patrick Palka
#6 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120693 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes it is a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 116296 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|[16 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120693
Bug ID: 120693
Summary: [16 Regression] ICE: during GIMPLE pass: modref
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117974
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120692
Bug ID: 120692
Summary: Copying of adjacent fields can be merged
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
Bug ID: 120691
Summary: _Decimal128 arithmetic error under FE_UPWARD
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #52 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 61656
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61656&action=edit
Patch
The attached modification to the v18 patch to gcc/ada/s-oscons-tmplt.c
fixes the gnat endian issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120690
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120690
Bug ID: 120690
Summary: Faster short testing of gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115893
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, can't we just keep cris doing what it wants and not penalize other arches
because of that?
Like:
--- gcc/function.cc.jj 2025-05-20 08:14:06.105410349 +0200
+++ gcc/function.cc 2025-06-17 20:03:03.45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120681
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
I think it's supposed to demonstrate the problem, not go into the testsuite
as-is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120681
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is this testcase meant to test? The only thing it *does* test is if this
trivial piece of code compiles at all (it doesn't test if the code generated is
correct, or anything else about it!)
It ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120689
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This changed with r10-577-g325437b2a329715da7be4de792af052c19a0ac7b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120689
Bug ID: 120689
Summary: Codegen optimization regression passing struct in
register in gcc 10+ on x86-64.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120673
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fba2f08152375e2c1c167ec921a0197e4c07efc6
commit r16-1546-gfba2f08152375e2c1c167ec921a0197e4c07efc6
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120665
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120665
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f577a9eb3c80594e46498d10b7eaacff47fe2286
commit r16-1547-gf577a9eb3c80594e46498d10b7eaacff47fe2286
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120688
Bug ID: 120688
Summary: [16 Regression] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3 since
r15-579-ga9251ab3c91
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120687
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
Yeah, for 8 elements we still have a mode but beyond 8 we at least cannot do a
segment access anymore. Then we try with even/odd or interleaved permutations.
I kind of wonder why the cost model doesn't reject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120673
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 61654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61654&action=edit
Proposed fix which detects cyclic type dependencies
This patch fixes an ICE which will occur if cyclic dependen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120687
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I similarly see this generates ~200 lines of assembly for aarch64 compared to
~20 with Clang so I'd mark it as target-independent.
I think I remember a bug in the past about the need for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120687
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 280959 matches
Mail list logo
