2023.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc
gcc version 14.0.0 20231109 (experimental) (391f9798b35ec75c)
results.20231112.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc
gcc version 14.0.0 20231109 (experimental) (e0787da263322fc1)
gcc $
So it looks ok with g:e01c2eeb2b654abc and wrong with g:5dbaf4851bbf56b6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112486
Bug ID: 112486
Summary: GCC: 14: hangs with always_inline
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
Bug ID: 112487
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
setup_one_parameter, at tree-inline.cc:3565
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112486
wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Bug ID: 112488
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in make_ssa_name_fn,
at tree-ssanames.cc:354
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112489
Bug ID: 112489
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112486
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
Bug ID: 112490
Summary: infinite meta error in
reverse_iterator::ite
rator>>
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112491
Bug ID: 112491
Summary: std::deque::size xmethod output is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR tree-optimization/109154
> * match.pd: Add new neg+abs rule, remove inverse copysign rule.
I guess the inverse c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Minimized test case:
! { dg-do run }
use, intrinsic :: ieee_arithmetic
implicit none
real :: sx1, sx2, sx3
double precision :: dx1, dx2, dx3
type(ieee_round_type) :: mode
! Test IEEE_COPY_SIGN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
In 268r.cse1:
(insn 26 25 27 2 (set (reg:SF 93)
(mem/u/c:SF (reg/f:DI 94) [0 S4 A32])) "ieee_2.f90":13:6 discrim 4 146
{*movsf_hardfloat}
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_double:SF -1.0e+0 [-0x0.8p+1])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112492
Bug ID: 112492
Summary: Add LLVM BOLT support to the GCC build scripts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112493
Bug ID: 112493
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
verify_sra_access_forest, at tree-sra.cc:2421
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
Bug ID: 112494
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in ix86_cc_mode, at
config/i386/i386.cc:16477
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
Bug ID: 112495
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
--- Comment #1 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
Correction: It should be -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112496
Bug ID: 112496
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
vectorizable_nonlinear_induction, at
tree-vect-loop.cc:9573
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #40 from John David Anglin ---
Jeff,
I don't think these split instructions make a lot of sense on PA-RISC.
(insn 280 277 281 30 (set (reg/f:SI 20 %r20 [480])
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 19 %r19 [orig:127 prephitmp_37 ] [127])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91865
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110551
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #41 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I would agree. In fact,the whole point of the f-m-o pass is to bring those
immediates into the memory reference. It'd be really useful to know why that
isn't happening.
The only thing I can think of wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Bug ID: 112497
Summary: Bootstrap comparison failure:
gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on
loongarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112413
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Riviere ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
> Does the `.balignw` filler disappear if you drop `-malign-int`?
No, it stays, but its value becomes 2, so it doesn't cause trouble.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0, 13.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12
Summary|Bootstrap com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
FWIW, GCC configured with:
--with-system-zlib --disable-fixincludes --enable-default-ssp
--enable-default-pie --disable-werror --disable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> If at all possible, cc Jin Ma in this since it's his change, I just reviewed
> and committed the bits on Jin's behalf.
I've replied the gcc-patch thread. It seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This failure means the stage1 and stage2 compilers generated different code for
the same input.
So when I need to debug this I usually start by first getting that source code.
Based in the title of this b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fixed by r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0221:
0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e is the first new commit
commit 0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Thu Aug 17 12:34:59 2023 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|loongarch64-linux-gnu |loongarch64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> Fixed by r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0221:
That almost definitely just made the issue go latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||141242068 at smail dot
nju.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.0
Summary|GCC: 14: inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> Yeah, that fold-rtx code is bogus. It's a latent bug.
>
> Optimizing copysign(x, -y) to neg(x) is just wrong.
>
> Will you be sending a patch Xi or do you want m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.5.0
Summary|[14 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110790
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I need some code generation help for gcc.target/i386/pr110790-2.c, I have a
patch where we now generate:
```
movq(%rdi,%rax,8), %rax
shrq%cl, %rax
andl$1, %eax
```
instea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110790
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I need some code generation help for gcc.target/i386/pr110790-2.c, I have a
> patch where we now generate:
> ```
> movq(%rdi,%rax,8), %rax
> sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
*** Bug 112484 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112484
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |xry111 at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 56563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56563&action=edit
Partial testsuite fixes
This patch contains obvious fixes to 3 testcases, except for
assumed_rank_9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It has failed since __writeeflags/__readeflags was added in 4.9.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112403
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56564&action=edit
Full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111638
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103959
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112498
Bug ID: 112498
Summary: std::is_convertible::value returns
false
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107671
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #10)
>
> I'm testing a patch.
Did you get anywhere in the end?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107671
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #12 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed (actually two alternatives proposed) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636203.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is interesting, I cannot reproduce it locally with
r14-5371-g93e92b2e5d6866 .
but with the version in godbolt I could (r14-5368-ge0787da263322f).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I tried `--param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0` and it still
does not ICE.
The exact command line I tried:
```
[apinski@xeond2 upstream-gcc-match]$ ~/upstream-gcc-match/bin/gcc t.cc -DICE -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56565&action=edit
unreduced testcase
Ok, with this preprocessed source I am able to reproduce it locally.
I have not looked into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56566
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56566&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112498
--- Comment #2 from Ingo Josopait ---
Yes, you are right. It is confusing, though. Maybe the warning message should
mention that it is actually invalid code. It looked more like a suggestion to
me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #42 from John David Anglin ---
The problem is we are limiting displacements to five bits in
pa_legitimate_address_p. The comment is somewhat confusing but
we may have reload issues if we allow 14-bit displacements before
reload comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE internal compiler |ICE internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well clang does not implement CWG2369 resolution.
Which GCC implemented in r11-2774 . So it might be that is the reason why GCC
rejects it and clang does not.
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
