https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104719
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch to remove indirections in std::array which I'll commit for GCC
13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105067
Bug ID: 105067
Summary: ICE: in operator[], at vec.h:889
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
20327001633-gd2906412ada-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220327 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #2 from Janez Zemva ---
Yeah, I tried to make a minimal crash example for you, but it compiled
perfectly. Anyway, you know about the crash, you know about my repository and I
am no hurry for a fix, as this is my pet-project. And this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Read it again, because you've misunderstood. It doesn't say we need a minimal
example, that's not essential. But it clearly says to provide the code HERE,
not via URL. And to include the output of gcc -v.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And segfaults are not special, it's a bug like many others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91440
R Copley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105069
Bug ID: 105069
Summary: [12 regression] sh-elf internal compiler errors and
test failures with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105069
--- Comment #1 from John Scott ---
Here is a backtrace:
bar.c:2:1: internal compiler error: ‘global_options’ are modified in local
context
2 | [[gnu::optimize("Os")]] int main(void) {}
| ^
0xe71b6b cl_optimization_compare(gcc_options*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105070
Bug ID: 105070
Summary: Missing debug info for switch statement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|iq2000-elf, v850e-elf |iq2000-elf
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102071
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101886
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
This use of 'auto' was not accepted into C++20, so fixing this bug in the
vestigial Concepts TS implementation is a low priority.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #5 from Janez Zemva ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /build/gcc/src/gcc/configure
--enable-languag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #6 from Janez Zemva ---
Also, there are several workarounds around this bug, but I'll keep my
repository in a crashing state, until you find time to produce a minimal test
case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #7 from Janez Zemva ---
Also, I'd like to add, that you can mount a github repository with FUSE, so
providing an URL is almost the same as providing an archive.
https://github.com/taterbase/git-mount
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #8 from Janez Zemva ---
I can reproduce the bug in my rpi4b:
$ g++ -std=c++20 -Ofast loopdemo.cpp -o l
In file included from loopdemo.cpp:3:
loop.hpp:169:55: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
169 | requires(std::is_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105068
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08e69332881f8d28ce8b559ffba1900ae5c0d5ee
commit r12-7837-g08e69332881f8d28ce8b559ffba1900ae5c0d5ee
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Mar 27 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
--- Comment #9 from Janez Zemva ---
Anyway, I've grown bored, so here's the minimal test case:
#include
class task
{
friend void suspend_to(auto const tp) noexcept
requires(std::is_same_v);
};
class loop
{
friend void suspend_to(auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #35 from Mikael Morin ---
A little status update.
I have pushed the latest patch attached to this PR a little further, but not
far enough to reduce the number of testsuite regressions to 0.
I plan to submit it for gcc-13, but it wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.4.0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071
Bug ID: 105071
Summary: Incorrect code with -Os and complex
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99754
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> But that's unrelated to correctness; this bug can be closed unless we're
> keeping it open until it's fixed in the GCC11 current stable series.
Let me do the backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
>According to Intel (
> https://software.intel.com/sites/landingpage/IntrinsicsGuide), there are no
> alignment requirements for _mm_load_sd, _mm_store_sd and _mm_loaddup_pd. For
> example, from _mm_load_sd:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104915
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
As described in PR105066, pinsrw mem should be better than movzx + vmovd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105066
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
pinsrw is under sse2 for both reg and mem operands, but not for pextrw which
requires sse4.1 for memory operands.
10593(define_insn "vec_set_0"
10594 [(set (match_operand:V8_128 0 "register_operand"
10595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99754
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85568e505c3b06708ec0fb21d1ab4f78e0c66896
commit r11-9699-g85568e505c3b06708ec0fb21d1ab4f78e0c66896
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99754
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> >
> > But that's unrelated to correctness; this bug can be closed unless we're
> > keeping it open until it's fixed in the GCC11 current stable series.
>
> Let me d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105034
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
For -O2 stv doesn't do such transform
Computing gain for chain #1...
Instruction gain 8 for 7: {r84:SI=smax(r85:SI,0);clobber flags:CC;}
REG_DEAD r85:SI
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
Instruction conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105072
Bug ID: 105072
Summary: Miss optimization for pmovzxbq.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105066
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
> That may be a separate bug, IDK
>
Open PR105072 for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105073
Bug ID: 105073
Summary: [meta bug]Patch pending for GCC13.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
Could someone help to mark this blocks PR105073, the patch is ready and waiting
for GCC13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52495|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105056
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.0|11.2.0
Summary|Wrong loop c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 27 Mar 2022, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
>
> --- Comment #35 from Mikael Morin ---
> A little status update.
>
> I have push
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102957
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40e9979cf531e6a1ca1db8804c80e40e0e71de4c
commit r11-9700-g40e9979cf531e6a1ca1db8804c80e40e0e71de4c
Author: Kito Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102957
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
47 matches
Mail list logo
