https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86268
Alexander Westbrooks changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 86268, which changed state.
Bug 86268 Summary: [9.0] Error on correct code with PDTs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86268
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114176
Bug ID: 114176
Summary: Failure to optimize out useless stack spill when array
is present in union
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114176
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note return has a similar issue too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14] RISC-V: Execution test |[13/14] RISC-V: Execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess somebody should read the psABI, figure out whether it is passed right on
the caller side (without the patch or with it) or callee and debug afterwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The arguments are passed in by the caller in a0 (the hidden struct pointer
> or explicit in the other one), a1 (1), a2+a3 (2.0), a4 (3), a5+a6 (4.0).
Actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#3 0x00010f00 in main () at
../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c:188
in comment #c0 is the abort after the f call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #45 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=106355
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe
2024-02-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/114175
* function.cc (assign_parms): Only call assign_parms_setup_varargs
early for TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P functions if fnargs is em
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe not, feels like a scheduling change:
@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ f:
mv s0,a0
sw a2,1064(sp)
sw a3,1068(sp)
- sw a0,1056(sp)
sw a1,1060(sp)
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:33:51PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9)
> > --- snip ---
> > > % gfcx -o z a.f90
> > > a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110242
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
We're trying to emit the "no return statement in function returning non-void"
warning, which triggers dump_template_bindings:
493 push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_check);
494 t = tsubst (t,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> * out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c gets skipped on that machine due to
> { dg-require-effective-target lp64 }
> "check_cached_effective_target lp64: returning 0 for unix"
>
> Is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
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=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to pthaugen from comment #11)
> Another example to clean up. The back to back constant load/sign extend
> sequence of rtl insns is created in each block by the block reordering pass
> (.bbo) d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114177
Bug ID: 114177
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/loop_add_6.c needs to be fixed
for LLP64 targets
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
Bug ID: 114178
Summary: incorrect -Wstringop-overflow with freestanding +
placement new w/ initialization + no sse
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
--- Comment #31 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #29)
> This works fine for normal gather and scatters but doesn't work for widening
> gathers and narrowing scatters which only the pattern seems to handle.
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed. There is a dup of this bug somewhere. Basically the vectorizer is
causing some IR which shows up the warning. Yes even though you disable the
vector instruction sets, the vectorizer still happens,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #15 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
$ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
/* Test C23 variadic functions with no named parameters, or last named
parameter wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114179
Bug ID: 114179
Summary: diagnostic-manager.cc:811:28: warning: unknown
conversion type character 'E' in format
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114173
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Trying 7, 8, 9 -> 10:
7: r100:HI=zero_extend([const(`g_63'+0x10)])
8: {r107:HI=r100:HI+0x1;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
9: r108:SI=zero_extend(r107:HI)
REG_DEAD r107:HI
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114166
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #16 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #15)
> It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
>
> $ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
> /* Test C23 variadic functions with no named parameters,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
--- Comment #4 from Evan Teran ---
@Andrew, thanks for the quick analysis! Just to confirm, the warning is in fact
incorrect and the emitted code is not stomping outside of the buffer bounds?
I ask because I did also one last bit, which is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114178
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Evan Teran from comment #4)
> @Andrew, thanks for the quick analysis! Just to confirm, the warning is in
> fact incorrect and the emitted code is not stomping outside of the buffer
> bounds?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114159
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0d8a64e72324d1c2981da21a66394bf8f7a2889
commit r14-9245-gc0d8a64e72324d1c2981da21a66394bf8f7a2889
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114159
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE: in |[13 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #17 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to palmer from comment #15)
> > It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
> >
> > $ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114180
Bug ID: 114180
Summary: RISC-V: missing vsetvl changes tail policy and causes
wrong codegen
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> > So if I understand correctly, there may also be a problem where it's trying
> > to create that named first argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111523
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
There's some trace output at
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/26950#issue-1637752077 but it's not
quite the same as perf output.
But they do identify some bad functions:
"""
Observations:
manager_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111898
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Bug ID: 114181
Summary: issubnormal is a macro
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
Bug ID: 114182
Summary: gcc.c-torture/compile/attr-complex-method-2.c fails
for H8/300
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also please provide a full testcase to show what you are doing because this
code snippet is not even valid c++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
--- Comment #3 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
Of course issubnormal is defined in math.h (in my case line 1088, gcc 13.2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
g.peterh...@t-online.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|MOVED |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from g.pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++ standard does not define a std::issubnormal yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
g.peterh...@t-online.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from g.pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111523
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From that github issue:
Internal memory management to take exponentially longer on at least ARM
platforms.
This narrows things down slightly. But it also makes me think there is some
brokenness inside sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
g.peterh...@t-online.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from g.p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114164
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
g.peterh...@t-online.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from g.p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Can --with-multilib-list=aprofile,rmprofile at least be made the default when
no colliding --with-* options are specified?
Would that blow up "everyone"'s CI due to the extra build time?
If so, perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #13 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #11)
> >
> > I applied it, double checked, make distclean, configure, make again.
> >
> > But your result seems different. Have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
[apinski@xeond2 libstdc++-v3]$ c++filt --format dlang
_D4core8lifetime__T12_d_newclassTTC1a14BreakStatementZQBjFNaNbNeZQBf
core.lifetime._d_newclassT!(a.BreakStatement)._d_newclassT()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111523
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, systemd uses the cleanup attribute ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114183
Bug ID: 114183
Summary: Lambda constexpr works in msvc but not in gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.5.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114184
Bug ID: 114184
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2812 (unrecognizable
insn ) with -Og -mavx512f and __builtin_memmove()
_BitInt(256)
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114185
Bug ID: 114185
Summary: Missed tail-call optimization due to an argument whose
address is taken
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114185
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This code is undefined if the if is not taken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114185
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also the PR # you gave is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114186
Bug ID: 114186
Summary: Incorrect CTF generated for multidimensional array
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #14 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 57545 [details]
> gcc14-pr114116.patch
>
> This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the small testcase, back to the
> expected backtrace th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114155
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Upstream is notified,
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/16263#issuecomment-1969502776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114185
--- Comment #3 from Di Zhao ---
Sorry, the old tracker for the code is PR 17749 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > Any update? :)
>
> Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the
> spec score, I am currently tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111523
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> manager_deserialize takes ~1s instead of ~0.2s
I looked into manager-serialize.c and its code generation with and without
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero and there
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
