https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105486
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|sayle at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105484
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Similar like PR104450, don't expand stmt to vec_set when there's EH on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105489
Bug ID: 105489
Summary: Internal Compiler Error for 6 line source code (using
C++20 modules) doing nothing
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105487
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
When you say "if you set to a sysroot that doesn't contain any 32bit values,
and thus doesn't contain the /sysroot/usr/lib directory at all but only has
/sysroot/usr/lib64, then you can't compile GCC itself
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105484
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52929
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52929&action=edit
patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105480
--- Comment #2 from seberg ---
I still owed the correct example: https://godbolt.org/z/33Pj6xvPr
Now I think the cause is the indeed (somewhat understandandable) desire to
optimize away the branching. And not the instruction (I am not sure how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105409
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> $ cc1plus -m32 -quiet m.x0-m_m2.cpp
> m.x0-m_m2.cpp:111:1: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at
> simplify-rtx.cc:7351
> 111 | }
> | ^
If one compiles the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:938a02a589dc22cef65bba2b131fc9e4874baddb
commit r13-128-g938a02a589dc22cef65bba2b131fc9e4874baddb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105484
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a41143a2e24c65d94364fd82b165ff71a759d8
commit r13-129-ge1a41143a2e24c65d94364fd82b165ff71a759d8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|13.0|
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105490
Bug ID: 105490
Summary: unvectorized loop due to bool condition loaded from
memory and different size data
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 104595, which changed state.
Bug 104595 Summary: unvectorized loop due to bool condition loaded from memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105486
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:000f4480005035d0811e009a7cb25b42721f0a6e
commit r13-130-g000f4480005035d0811e009a7cb25b42721f0a6e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105486
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So alignment is definitely going to be a problem so I fixed that. Does this
resolve the FAIL on ppc64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Bug ID: 105491
Summary: Usafe of __constinit with -std=c++ does is rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105486
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
Targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105492
Bug ID: 105492
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in set_underlying_type, at
c-family/c-common.cc:8164
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The constexpr rules in C++11 are much stricter, this is probably user error
(i.e. C++20 constinit can't be used here).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
Bug ID: 105493
Summary: [12/13 Regression] x86_64 538.imagick_r 6% regressions
and 2% 525.x264_r regressions on Alder Lake after
r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
During type_unification_real as part of partial ordering, when considering
default template arguments we assume all previously deduced arguments are
non-dependent and therefore default argument instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105486
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92fff39f06449f907d8781a5dcaad0e8b9743480
commit r13-136-g92fff39f06449f907d8781a5dcaad0e8b9743480
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's a closely related rejects-valid (rather than ICE-on-valid) testcase,
where the default argument is now T instead of uint (which shouldn't affect
the outcome of partial ordering):
template struct uint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104162
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee1cb43bc76de800efa0ade687b0cd28e62a5f82
commit r13-137-gee1cb43bc76de800efa0ade687b0cd28e62a5f82
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99673
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] bogus |[11/13 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105210
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 105210, which changed state.
Bug 105210 Summary: gcc/auto-profile.cc:391:11: warning: variable 'level' set
but not used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105210
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101891
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105494
Bug ID: 105494
Summary: syntax error with requires { []{}(); };
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105494
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105409
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> It seems gm2 omits CC1_SPEC from the cc1/cc1plus invocation in
> gcc/m2/m2-link-support.h.
Indeed: the following trivial patch works wonders indeed:
diff --git a/gcc/m2/m2-link-suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105492
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105495
Bug ID: 105495
Summary: `__atomic_compare_exchange` prevents tail-call
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105495
--- Comment #1 from LIU Hao ---
A possible workaround is to use a scalar type to provide storage for local
variables, and cast them as needed:
Godbolt: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/n7zq7Pn4G
```c
typedef struct { int b; } cond;
int
__MCF_batch_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105487
--- Comment #6 from Paul Smith ---
If it is really required, then the GCC configure script or makefile or
something should detect this situation and fail. There's nothing in the
current build system or documentation that says this is needed and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105496
Bug ID: 105496
Summary: Comparison optimizations result in unnecessary cmp
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105487
--- Comment #7 from Paul Smith ---
Just to be clear when I say "Build GCC with that directory as the sysroot" I
mean something like this:
../gcc-11.3.0/configure --with-sysroot=/sysroot ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105492
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=105495
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
Wouldn't that go away if the value in it is never read back?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105495
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason why it works in #c1 is that we replace the
c = x_4(D);
n_6 = 2;
n.0_1 = n_6;
n.1_2 = (unsigned int) n.0_1;
__atomic_compare_exchange_4 (p_7(D), &c, n.1_2, 1, 0, 0);
call in the IL with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced. Works with -std=c++17 but not 14. It's about the union in
ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal.
class Message {
virtual int GetMetadata();
};
class ProtobufCFileOptions : Message {
public:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I think this is a genuine bug that started with r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/105491
struct V {
virtual int foo();
};
struct S : V {
constexpr S(int) : b() { }
bool b;
};
struct W {
constexpr W() : s({}) {}
union {
S s;
};
};
constexpr W w;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105488
--- Comment #3 from Pavel M ---
To: Andrew Pinski
Indeed, per C11:
> It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline definition
> or the external definition.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And since it only happens with a polymorphic class, my bet is that we think
there are two members because one is the artificial vtable for S and the other
is the bool. I can poke more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105497
Bug ID: 105497
Summary: -Wswitch ignores [[maybe_unused]] for an enumerator
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105497
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105497
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105210
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Should be fixed with g:880456ed99d23ae76be4ecc929bcbcf8cae5eb66.
Presumably there's a good reason why the one in file
libdecnumber/dpd/decimal64.c
didn't get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105409
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105487
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I expect you'd also see this issue with build-many-glibcs.py (from glibc)
if you remove the workaround code in that script:
# GCC uses paths such as lib/../lib64, so make sure lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #37 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #36)
> Mike had one patch [1] under review for the power8 fusion piece, moving this
> under his name. Thanks Mike!
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105210
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
> Presumably there's a good reason why the one in file
> libdecnumber/dpd/decimal64.c
> didn't get fixed ?
It's pretty legacy code out of gcc folder, so that's the reason ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105498
Bug ID: 105498
Summary: new test case
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wconversion-1.c from
r13-122-g1cd3faf5dddb3c has unexpected errors
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105498
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee9128189623ce43343ce326caa8d5eec2eccfec
commit r13-146-gee9128189623ce43343ce326caa8d5eec2eccfec
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105499
Bug ID: 105499
Summary: inconsistency between -Werror=c++-compat and g++ in
__extension__ block
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Hi all,
I will be looking closer on this one. As I said have to look at the checking
code. As soon as I noticed -std=f2003 allowing this it makes no sense at all.
I can understand possibly the extension t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
--- Comment #2 from cuilili ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Martin is currently re-benchmarking GCC 12 on AMD, so let's see if there's
> anything left on those.
AMD may not have this issue, Richard fixed AMD regression with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105500
Bug ID: 105500
Summary: [Gcov]wrong freqency for the while loop with struct in
the expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #18 from Mattias Ellert ---
If the additional symbols are undesirable, using the workaround proposed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336#c1 is an alternative. This
silences the warning without adding additional sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105499
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.3.1, 7.5.0
Status|UNCON
75 matches
Mail list logo
