https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* aarch64 |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 95341, which changed state.
Bug 95341 Summary: Poor vector_size decomposition when SVE is enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95341
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
The x86 and "emulation" paths handle narrowing/widening during code generation
(but yes, the IFN path doesn't). A fix would be to do similar as for the
gs_info.decl case in vectorizable_load/store and han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114081
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a5d9409584aeb777b06f9c19c7d1a3552d496ad
commit r14-9191-g8a5d9409584aeb777b06f9c19c7d1a3552d496ad
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
--- Comment #3 from Yves Bailly ---
Due credits to Stefano Bellotti for writing the
code that triggers the ICE - I only did the paperwork.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
idx ])
] UNSPEC_TBL))
"/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20240227/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/14.0.1/include/arm_neon.h":19566:43
-1
(nil))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Bug 106694 depends on bug 99161, which changed state.
Bug 99161 Summary: Suboptimal SVE code for ld4/st4 MLA code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99161
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99195
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there any remaining patterns that need vczle/vczbe added to it?
Otherwise please close this as fixed for GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the ones which produce ins, it should be easy to modify the pattern to emit
fmov for those cases, that is `elt == 0`:
(define_insn "aarch64_simd_vec_set_zero"
[(set (match_operand:VALLS_F16 0 "registe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110411
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by jeevitha :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41af48a1750635a72c48a5809e713d9dd14d9655
commit r11-11257-g41af48a1750635a72c48a5809e713d9dd14d9655
Author: Jeevitha
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114044
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3c44c01d20b00ab5228f32596153b7f4cbc6036
commit r14-9192-gc3c44c01d20b00ab5228f32596153b7f4cbc6036
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102171
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think I am going to implement this (or assign it interally to someone else
> to implement).
If you do, please also remove them from arm_neon.h and use the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102652
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The zeroing part was fixed in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114012
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Poux ---
Thanks for the quick fix !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114074
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b1798042d033fd2cc2c806afbb77875dd2909b
commit r14-9193-ga0b1798042d033fd2cc2c806afbb77875dd2909b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #9)
> Well it is not my testcase. But I added backtracing and observed that the
> printed backtrace is unchanged with your patch. The new
> no_return_to_caller():
You h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
Bug ID: 114126
Summary: A not infinite result of tanq of M_PI_2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide a full testcase? And also specify which target are you on?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114098
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26b1012c26c4b4de0b4561e74b856a7f7d259a48
commit r11-11258-g26b1012c26c4b4de0b4561e74b856a7f7d259a48
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114098
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57549&action=edit
prototype fix
This is very similar to PR113831. We again have two refs looking seemingly
the same:
_80 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not to mention that if it would be rounded up (like it happens e.g. in the
M_PI_f32 case), you wouldn't get inf either, nor -inf, but some large negative
number.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114127
Bug ID: 114127
Summary: [14 regression] Assert_Failure in nlists.adb
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128
Bug ID: 114128
Summary: ice with -fstrub=internal
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #7)
> Fixed.
Seems to have reappeared:
$ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -fstrub=internal bug988.cc
bt2_locks.cpp: In function ‘void mcs_lock::spin_while_eq(const volat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57551
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57551&action=edit
gcc14-pr113988.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114127
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] |Assert_Failure in
|As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #29 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #9)
> > Well it is not my testcase. But I added backtracing and observed that the
> > printed backtrace is unchanged with yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Which of course would regress something like
int a[16];
int foo (int i)
{
if (i > 7)
return a[i];
else
return a[i];
}
where we'd no longer hoist as we no longer would value-number the refs the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #29)
> Yes, when a backtrace is based on rbp, one needs -fno-omit-frame-pointer. I
> trusted comment #10 here, as it made sense.
See PR114116.
> glibc's backtrace() fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Could we for lookups if range isn't a subset of the found range pretend there
was not a match, try to see through definitions again and only if it yields an
equivalent result value range it the same? Perha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Shall I try to construct a non-bitint testcase for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
This seems to be a bug in the three way comparison introduced with C++20. The
bug happens while deciding whether key v2 already exists in the map or not.
template
constexpr auto
lexicogr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #31 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #29)
> > Yes, when a backtrace is based on rbp, one needs -fno-omit-frame-pointer. I
> > trusted comment #10 here, as it mad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #31)
> Even when I compile a simple program with gcc -O2 -g:
>
> #include
> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> abort();
> }
>
>
> I still get an "argc=":
Sure,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
--- Comment #4 from Sergio Peña ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Why do you think this is a bug?
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> _Float128 f = tanf128 (M_PI_2f128);
> volatile _Float128 g = M_PI_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114129
Bug ID: 114129
Summary: Inaccurate error message
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114126
--- Comment #5 from Sergio Peña ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Why do you think this is a bug?
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> _Float128 f = tanf128 (M_PI_2f128);
> volatile _Float128 g = M_PI_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it's guarded by:
if constexpr (__is_byte_iter<_InputIter1>)
if constexpr (__is_byte_iter<_InputIter2>)
This condition is only supposed to be true when sizeof(*__first1) == 1 and
siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111881
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43ad6ce60108acc822efcd394b75e270c1996cb5
commit r14-9195-g43ad6ce60108acc822efcd394b75e270c1996cb5
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #33 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #32)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #31)
> > Even when I compile a simple program with gcc -O2 -g:
> >
> > #include
> > int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114130
Bug ID: 114130
Summary: RISC-V: `__atomic_compare_exchange` does not use
sign-extended value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111881
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114129
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Shall I try to construct a non-bitint testcase for this?
That would be nice, more coverage is always good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Best effort are the whatever@entry values, that is used if an argument is no
longer used across the function call and isn't stored in any call saved
register or stack slot.
There can be also automatic variab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114131
Bug ID: 114131
Summary: std::isinf(std::float128_t) generates superfluous
nan-checks
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Could we for lookups if range isn't a subset of the found range pretend
> there was not a match, try to see through definitions again and only if it
> yields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114131
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-27
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114004
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114132
Bug ID: 114132
Summary: [avr] Code sets up a frame pointer without need
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114132
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I hand edit the gcc trunk + PR114116 patch assembly, add to bar
+ .cfi_undefined 3
+ .cfi_undefined 12
+ .cfi_undefined 13
+ .cfi_undefined 14
+ .cfi_undefined 15
then bt in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Guard __is_byte_iter checks for contiguous bytes which I guess is fine for
std::vector and then checks for __is_memcmp_ordered which is fine for
big-endian targets in conjunction with unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ohhh, I forgot I did that, sorry!
Yeah, the memcmp code wasn't updated to match the different behaviour of
__is_byte_iter for BE.
We can't use memcmp if the sizes are different. We don't want to use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h
@@ -1824,8 +1824,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_ALGO
}
#if __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison
- // Iter poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #9 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> We can't use memcmp if the sizes are different. We don't want to use the
> min, we want to guard that code with the sizes being the same, then w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh I already defined a __is_memcmp_ordered_with trait, which does the same-size
check. I think that's what should be used here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h
@@ -1824,11 +1824,14 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_ALGO
}
#if __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison
- // Iter p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114133
Bug ID: 114133
Summary: problem passing a string pointer to a C function on
solaris 32 bit and 64 bit
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114026
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 106907, which changed state.
Bug 106907 Summary: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc:23155: strange expression ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106907
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106907
Jeevitha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110320
Jeevitha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110411
Jeevitha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #31 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> Either tree parmdef = ssa_default_def (cfun, parm) is NULL, or has_zero_uses
> (parmdef).
> Not sure if has_zero_uses will work properly after some bbs are con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114133
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned long
foo (unsigned long x)
{
unsigned long y[128], z = 0, w = 0;
y[127] = x;
__builtin_memset (&y, 0, 127 * sizeof (long));
for (unsigned long i = 0; i < 128;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114133
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57552
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57552&action=edit
Query proposed fix
Does this patch fix the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
Bug ID: 114134
Summary: Extra mov instructions for simple function compared
with GCC13
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114133
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
At a guess the problem was the ZTyped constant (1 and 5). Now the gimple IR
shows these constants as integers:
$ cat callingc10.mod.095i.comdats
PROC _M2_callingc10_init (INTEGER argc, PROC * argv, PROC * e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101443
Rafi Wiener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #14 from Rafi Wiener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114013
--- Comment #3 from Enrico Seiler ---
For -O0 and -O1, this also does not link:
template int value;
template <> inline int value<1>;
void bar(int) { bar(value<1>); }
https://godbolt.org/z/Wxv7PE8ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
unsigned a[24], b[24];
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned
foo (unsigned _BitInt(4) x)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 24; ++i)
a[i] = i;
unsigned e = __builtin_stdc_bit_ceil (x);
for (int i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114135
Bug ID: 114135
Summary: Diagnostic missing useful information for ranges code
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unsigned a[24], b[24];
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned
foo (unsigned char x)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 24; ++i)
a[i] = i;
unsigned e = __builtin_stdc_bit_ceil (x);
for (int i = 0; i < 24; ++i)
b[i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #36 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> If I hand edit the gcc trunk + PR114116 patch assembly, add to bar
> + .cfi_undefined 3
> + .cfi_undefined 12
> + .cfi_undefined 13
> + .cfi_undef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nowhere, just run and when it stops due to abort, just up several times until
reaching the appropriate frame.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114136
Bug ID: 114136
Summary: wrong code for c23 fully anonymous arg lists on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114136
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
--- Comment #1 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113768
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113871
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15d1dae0d4d1be88d28ad7578a60fd3e36de36d8
commit r14-9198-g15d1dae0d4d1be88d28ad7578a60fd3e36de36d8
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue F
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
