https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114264
Bug ID: 114264
Summary: RISC-V: ICE in riscv-vector-costs.cc of gcc master
branch
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #13)
> Created attachment 57638 [details]
> patch
>
> Ok, there were 2 issues with simply invoking range_of_stmt, which this new
> patch resolves. IF we aren't lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114258
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, very strange RTL we emit for the union assignment.
void func_1(union U6 *a) {
g_13 = *a;
}
works OK though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114260
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howard.hinnant at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Note I do understand what you are saying, just the middle-end in detecting
> and using __builtin_bswap32 does what it does everywhere else - it checks
> whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...and I don't see why a register allocator would or should fix flaws from tree
optimizers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c655c8d8d845b36c59babb2413ce7aa3584dbeda
commit r14-9354-gc655c8d8d845b36c59babb2413ce7aa3584dbeda
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1bd0f293d8407d4e8149fbafd470612323dc938
commit r14-9353-ge1bd0f293d8407d4e8149fbafd470612323dc938
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b209d905f5ce1fa9d76ce634fd54245ff340960b
commit r14-9355-gb209d905f5ce1fa9d76ce634fd54245ff340960b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114265
Bug ID: 114265
Summary: Unhelpful message when var name is also a struct name
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #19 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Sarah Julia Kriesch from comment #15)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Sarah Julia Kriesch from comment #12)
> > A bigger case of what? What do you mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #17)
...
> So what is really happening? And, when did this start, anyway, because
> apparently at some point in time all was fine?
Due to the C++ constructs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #21 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
...
> When some insns have changed (or might have changed, combine does not always
> know
> the details), combinations of the insn with later insns are tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.cc b/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.cc
index 42b68abf61b..c9d4662656f 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.cc
@@ -170,6 +1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108036
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> I think the target controls the "libcall" ABI that's used for calls to
> libgcc,
You have a pointer how to do it or an example? IIRC I looked into it quit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114266
Bug ID: 114266
Summary: No -pedantic diagnostic for zero-sized array in
compound literals
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114266
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Lundin ---
Created attachment 57643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57643&action=edit
Complete example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108036
--- Comment #9 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Hi Lundin!
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:18:12AM +, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from Daniel Lundin ---
> I don't believe char past_end[0] is valid C, because it is an i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #12)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > I think the target controls the "libcall" ABI that's used for calls to
> > libgcc,
>
> You have a pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98356
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:940586a63586941a9f2b973491afc8a15a96c98b
commit r14-9357-g940586a63586941a9f2b973491afc8a15a96c98b
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98881
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f8a3da8ea30066d2201f8148714a8e89da5
commit r14-9356-g2f8a3da8ea30066d2201f8148714a8e89da5
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98881
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 98881, which changed state.
Bug 98881 Summary: [modules] internal compiler error: in tpl_parms_fini, at
cp/module.cc:9933
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98881
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Hi，Ruoyao:
>
> The results of spec2006 on 3A6000 were obtained, I removed the more volatile
> test items, '-falign-loops=8 -falign-functions=8 -falign-jumps=32
> -falign-lables=4' this set of parameters got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #16 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #15)
> > Hi，Ruoyao:
> >
> > The results of spec2006 on 3A6000 were obtained, I removed the more
> > volatile
> > test items, '-falign-loops=8 -falign-functions=8 -falign-j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114195
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
Testing a fix for possible regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-07
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114267
Bug ID: 114267
Summary: bogus -Wsubobject-linkage when using lambda members as
template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114233
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110199
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #18 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
First patch pushed as
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=9970b576b7e4ae337af1268395ff221348c4b34a
(forgot to add the PR number, silly me)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57645
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57645&action=edit
gcc14-pr113617-test.patch
Does this fix that? Tried to define everything I saw in nm -u on the result on
Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #21 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
That reduces a lot, but it's still missing main:
Excess errors:
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"_main", referenced from:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e71a4e81729516eed8782a255ff37617e6fd4b69
commit r14-9361-ge71a4e81729516eed8782a255ff37617e6fd4b69
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #21)
> That reduces a lot, but it's still missing main:
>
> Excess errors:
> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
> "_main", referenced from:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #23 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
It's not being passed -shared on darwin:
Executing on host: /Users/fx/ibin-20240306/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/Users/fx/ibin-20240306/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/Users/fx/gcc-upstream/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
The code in the example is not a perfect bswap, it needs additional shuffling
of bytes. The tree passes must know that bswap is not a perfect fit. There
must be *some* criterion that depends on the per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #23)
> It's not being passed -shared on darwin:
Then that means the shared effective target doesn't work properly on darwin
then.
It even has hacks for dar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e591e6f27a20c26672ea8c0550a6ef673c1fccf
commit r13-8409-g0e591e6f27a20c26672ea8c0550a6ef673c1fccf
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113950
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by jeevitha :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa0468877869f52b05742de6deef582e4dd296fc
commit r14-9362-gfa0468877869f52b05742de6deef582e4dd296fc
Author: Jeevitha
Date: Thu Mar 7 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #25 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Yes, that test in check_effective_target_shared actually works with C, but not
with C++, because:
Undefined symbols for architecture arm64:
"__Z3foov", referenced from:
__Z3bazv in ccCj5p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e1d7aa8b4f0b8afff1de59fcadf1db0244b4e1
commit r12-10197-gf9e1d7aa8b4f0b8afff1de59fcadf1db0244b4e1
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #26 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
PS: I can confirm two things:
1. Your patch above is still necessary
2. In conjunction with the darwin-specific fix below, the testcase now passes:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114233
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Jakub has posted a patch in the linker PR (thanks!).
But there remains a darwin bug. The test in check_effective_target_shared
actually works with C, but not with C++, because:
Undefined symbols
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b26501b6e310345ad9f6423b3f8b9df178c5e7d9
commit r11-11272-gb26501b6e310345ad9f6423b3f8b9df178c5e7d9
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114268
Bug ID: 114268
Summary: [14 Regression] 5% exec time regression in
454.calculix on Aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108792
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110031
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f915684624413f96e1a5ffada398ccd1c533e38
commit r14-9364-g9f915684624413f96e1a5ffada398ccd1c533e38
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note one thing that might help is define an alternative for bswap that takes a
memory operand and just do the load that way. That will definitely help in the
original code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110031
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114233
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> Jakub has posted a patch in the linker PR (thanks!).
>
> But there remains a darwin bug. The test in check_effective_target_shared
> actually works with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Extended test. I think all 4 should be emitted.
```
// PR c++/110323
template
struct conditional { using type = T; };
template
struct conditional { using type = F; };
constexpr int VAL = 1;
static cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114269
Bug ID: 114269
Summary: [14 Regression] Multiple 3-27% exec time regressions
of 434.zeusmp since r14-9193-ga0b1798042d033
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114270
Bug ID: 114270
Summary: Integer multiplication on floating point constant with
conversion back to integer is not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114233
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> The question is: will this reveal new issues in other tests that weren't
> running before. I'm starting a new regtest and will post the results here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I did a git bisect which ended up pointing at this commit, somewhere between
GCC 8 and 9:
commit c4c5ad1d6d1e1e1fe7a1c2b3bb097cc269dc7306 (bad)
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Mon Jul 30 15:18:17 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #23 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 57646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57646&action=edit
Testcase for comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #13)
> >
> > We would have tripped over this earlier if SCEV or one of those other places
> > using range_of_expr
> Note GCC has not retuned its -Os heurstics for a long time because it has been
> decent enough for most folks and corner cases like this is almost never come
> up.
There were quite few changes to -Os heuristics :)
One of bigger challenges is that we do see more and more C++ code built
with -Os wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114262
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Note GCC has not retuned its -Os heurstics for a long time because it has been
> decent enough for most folks and corner cases like this is almost never come
> up.
There were quite few changes to -Os heurist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #21)
> Wouldn't it in this particular case be possible to recognize already in
> try_combine that separating the move out of the parallel cannot lead to
> addi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #25 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this testcase compiles on powerpc64-linux (-O2) in about 34s. Is s390x
way worse, or is this in lie what you are seeing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114271
Bug ID: 114271
Summary: [ICE] on invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114271
--- Comment #1 from Egor Pugin ---
echo "int f=[](class{" | g++ -x c++ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114266
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egor.pugin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vegard.nossum at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114049
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into the s390 backend, I notice that s390_address_cost says the
addressing mode `base+index` is slightly more expensive than just `base`:
from s390_address_cost :
return ad.indx? COSTS_N_INSNS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114272
Bug ID: 114272
Summary: SCHEDULER_IDENT incorrect for Cortex-A520 and
Cortex-A510
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114272
Richard Ball changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #25)
> So this testcase compiles on powerpc64-linux (-O2) in about 34s. Is s390x
> way worse, or is this in lie what you are seeing?
I should note that in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114272
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Ball from comment #0)
> The SCHEDULER_IDENT for these two CPUs was incorrectly
> set to cortexa55, which is incorrect. This can cause
> incorrect asm to be generated.
SCHEDULER_IDENT wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114272
--- Comment #2 from Richard Ball ---
Bad wording on my part there, apologies. You're correct, not incorrect perhaps
sub-optimal is a better wording.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114262
--- Comment #7 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> > Note GCC has not retuned its -Os heurstics for a long time because it has
> > been
> > decent enough for most folks and corner cases like this is almost never come
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109969
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57647&action=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed fix. The fix contains a re-write of M2LexBuf.mod which
removes the linked list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114273
Bug ID: 114273
Summary: `PHI(a, MIN(b, c)) < c` is not optimized to just
`PHI(a,b) < c`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109760
--- Comment #4 from Stephane Potvin ---
I confirm that the error is not present anymore when applying
55914b016de8c8514c58eb59822677a69e44135c on 13.1.0 and 13.2.1. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114267
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
struct F{
constexpr static const auto a=[]() {};
constexpr static const auto b=1.0;
};
auto t = F::a;
auto t0 = F::b;
```
t is localized while t0 is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
>
> --- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
> The code in the example is not a perfect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #28 from Segher Boessenkool ---
For Q111: on rs6000:
;; Combiner totals: 53059 attempts, 52289 substitutions (7135 requiring new
space),
;; 229 successes.
I don't have C++ cross-compilers built (those are not trivial to do, hrm).
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #19 from Dimitry Andric ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #18)
> First patch pushed as
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;
> h=9970b576b7e4ae337af1268395ff221348c4b34a
> (forgot to add the PR number, si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111284
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57648&action=edit
gcc14-pr111284.patch
So, I've tried to fix this by constexpr evaluating the arguments passed to
PARM_DECLs wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I did manage to build one, but it does not know _Float64x and stuff.
Do you have a basic C-only testcase, maybe?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109969
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99309b98c2e80a42886da36668e1e8d3d082699e
commit r14-9365-g99309b98c2e80a42886da36668e1e8d3d082699e
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109969
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 94476, which changed state.
Bug 94476 Summary: NSDMI deferred parse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94476
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94476
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
