https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114955
--- Comment #5 from hanwei (K) ---
You mean the pragma pack just apply to the inner members of struct, not the
first member. The align of struct (first member also) is controlled by
__attribute__((aligned(...))). Right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114956
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segmentation fault with |[11/12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:094f8a36dffea52fe6a64596203b82648a3f6121
commit r13-8689-g094f8a36dffea52fe6a64596203b82648a3f6121
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114955
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is not about the alignment of the first field but rather the alignment of a
struct. BUT variable alignment is controlled separately from struct alignment.
That is the point I am trying to make. If you wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a5acd2583056e8cd0e5fda83e7c34be65415c62
commit r12-10415-g3a5acd2583056e8cd0e5fda83e7c34be65415c62
Author: Paul Thomas
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-06
Summary|[11/12/13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111475
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7b4305f9c0d23a9dfb2cf0855d345ff67e48732
commit r14-10170-gc7b4305f9c0d23a9dfb2cf0855d345ff67e48732
Author: Rainer Orth
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The stdx::simd implementation in this area is old and mainly tuned to be
correct. I can rewrite the split and concat implementation to use
__builtin_shufflevector (which wasn't available in GCC at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 May 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
>
> --- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
> The stdx::simd implementation in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112959
--- Comment #5 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Rainer, do you think the three changes I made - and hence the current
state of install.texi on trunk - address all the issues you reported
and sufficiently well?
(I hope Andrew is going to commit the chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #64 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 4 May 2024, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
>
> --- Comment #61 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> We used to do the wrong thing in co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #65 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 01:14:18PM +, sarah.kriesch at opensuse dot org
wrote:
Do not reply to a PR comment in private mail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #66 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #64)
> As promised I'm going to revert the revert after 14.1 is released
> (hopefully tomorrow).
Thank you! beer++
> As for distros I have decided to inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #67 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #66)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #64)
> > As promised I'm going to revert the revert after 14.1 is released
> > (hopefully tomorrow).
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
commit r13-8690-g9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113885
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
commit r13-8690-g9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36337
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
commit r13-8690-g9f204cc695d27d0b8eb69d9a4d266261171185ae
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113885
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112407
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f598a1c8a77e678ca009b433fd849b4834594926
commit r13-8691-gf598a1c8a77e678ca009b433fd849b4834594926
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112407
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106999
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:429935510202c4efee933bf907fd9dff816193f2
commit r13-8692-g429935510202c4efee933bf907fd9dff816193f2
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112407
--- Comment #14 from Tomáš Trnka ---
I have been testing my own backport of the master commit on top of current 13
branch for some weeks now and it works great. Our codebase now compiles even
without -frecursive without any related warnings/erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
https://godbolt.org/z/P6cfbjT9f
#include
typedef uint64_t T;
typedef T V [[gnu::vector_size(32)]];
typedef struct simd4 {
V data;
} simd4;
typedef struct simd1 {
T data;
} simd1;
typede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106999
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d72e9f90e370538b057690b16c1e65350dbbb75c
commit r12-10416-gd72e9f90e370538b057690b16c1e65350dbbb75c
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106999
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Thanks, and it might be enough to handle
typedef unsigned long V [[gnu::vector_size(32)]];
V load3(const unsigned long* ptr)
{
V ret = {};
__builtin_memcpy(&ret, ptr, 3 * sizeof(unsigned long));
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
Bug ID: 114958
Summary: use __builtin_shufflevector for
std::experimental::simd split and concat (at least the
common cases) to enable better optimizations
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I suspect resolving this is only one part of it. But I'm happy to be proven
wrong. :)
I opened PR114958 to track the simd implementation change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114948
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114948
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Hmm, it actually fails on Clang because Clang requires the vector width of both
arguments to be equal.
But yes, I guess I should make __vec_shuffle friendlier to non-GCC compilers.
I'm not sure about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114959
Bug ID: 114959
Summary: incorrect TBAA for drived types involving function
types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strange, the __builtin_shufflevector in GCC has been added for Clang
compatibility.
__builtin_shuffle is the original native GCC builtin (which Clang doesn't
implement).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112959
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
> Rainer, do you think the three changes I made - and hence the current
> state of install.texi on trunk - address all the issues you reported
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #6 from Deepthi H ---
Created attachment 58107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58107&action=edit
workaround for gcc driver long argument list error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #7 from Deepthi H ---
We've a solution for this issue.
When gcc/g++ is called using the @response-file.rsp syntax, gcc should forward
the argument to its subprocesses. Previously the files were expanded which
could lead to excessive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114959
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114275
Adhemerval Zanella changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adhemerval.zanella at linaro
dot o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] wrong code |[14 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100923
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c469a9fc785505dc350aba60311812c2bb0c1b5
commit r15-204-g7c469a9fc785505dc350aba60311812c2bb0c1b5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114246
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4795316b2d92c9edd3d86ffa11425c82d1e379c
commit r13-8694-gc4795316b2d92c9edd3d86ffa11425c82d1e379c
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47cd06042237bf2d4f05b8355362bc038f6fa445
commit r13-8693-g47cd06042237bf2d4f05b8355362bc038f6fa445
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20ebcaf826c91ddaf2aac35417ec1e5e6d31ad50
commit r13-8695-g20ebcaf826c91ddaf2aac35417ec1e5e6d31ad50
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114787
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:715a1df9082b40cf810283632218258ac9c86773
commit r13-8697-g715a1df9082b40cf810283632218258ac9c86773
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c3011ec4825bf06c9d268361a53f8239bf9564a
commit r13-8696-g4c3011ec4825bf06c9d268361a53f8239bf9564a
Author: Patrick O'Nei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114799
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:026ecb914d3d84c6e803cedb8b1677d3e7ddd60f
commit r13-8698-g026ecb914d3d84c6e803cedb8b1677d3e7ddd60f
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.2.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114944
--- Comment #2 from John Platts ---
Here is more optimal codegen for SSE2ShuffleI8 on x86_64:
SSE2ShuffleI8(long long __vector(2), long long __vector(2)):
pandxmm1, XMMWORD PTR .LC0[rip]
movaps XMMWORD PTR [rsp-24], xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114872
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114867
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
The unreduced code is actually a regression from gcc-12.
@Jonathan Wakely:
Could you maybe workaround it in libstdc++ by declaring the std::swap overload
for exception_ptr in additional inline n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114907
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114960
Bug ID: 114960
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] fails to clean up vector
casts
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
amily/c-opts.cc:1329
GCC version:
gcc version 14.0.1 20240506 (prerelease) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114961
--- Comment #1 from Marcin Nowak ---
I typed some typos in main.cpp. There should not be `MyVector` but `Vector`.
Anyway this typos does not matter if ICE is caused or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114959
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
The GCC FE has all the necessary logic to compute type compatibility and this
could easily be adapted to compute equivalence classes and then set a
TYPE_CANONICAL. All function types in the same class would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114944
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
Bug ID: 114962
Summary: For each iteration in static assert fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Deepthi H from comment #7)
>
> Let us know your comments on this solution. Such a solution is acceptable to
> change the gcc driver?
Seems better to place the arguments in a file instead and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114944
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Like this:
pandxmm1, XMMWORD PTR .LC0[rip]
movaps XMMWORD PTR [rsp-40], xmm0
xor eax, eax
xor edx, edx
movaps XMMWORD PTR [rsp-24], xmm1
mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114960
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114275
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #8)
> This has triggered some regression on aarch64 [1]:
>
> Running g++:g++.dg/modules/modules.exp ...
> FAIL: g++.dg/modules/tpl-friend-4_b.C -std=c++17 (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113180
--- Comment #3 from YunQiang Su ---
The argument `to` of `expand_assignment` differs between `strict-align` and
`no-strict-align`.
`debug_tree` states that the `strict-align` one has a `MEMREF` RTL, while
`no-strict-align` has a `reg` one.
An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112868
--- Comment #13 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
> This is clearly a stage1 patch, so we'll wait until
> then before submitting it.
I'm not that familiar with gcc development procedures. Do I understand you
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08e752e72363ae7fd5a5fcb70913a0f7b240387b
commit r15-207-g08e752e72363ae7fd5a5fcb70913a0f7b240387b
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #33 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:287293786d541217e7bf47cab6b8fb522ae9156a
commit r13-8699-g287293786d541217e7bf47cab6b8fb522ae9156a
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114872
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dmitrii Pasechnik from comment #12)
> A colleague disassembled, using ghidra (https://ghidra-sre.org/), the
> results of the compilations with, respectively, -O2 and with -O0 flags.
> Comparing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114801
--- Comment #32 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 58110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58110&action=edit
patch v2
Here is another patch proposal along the lines of what you suggest in #c24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114801
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is still a hack, but guess can be acceptable for 14.22 and short term
trunk if the ARM maintainers approve it.
But, for GCC 15+, I think if the behavior is that when the predicate
constant/register is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114872
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #14)
> I reproduced the `SIGSEGV` on Gentoo ~amd64 and ::sage-on-gentoo overlay
> against sci-mathematics/sagemath-standard package.
>
> One of the unusual prop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114963
Bug ID: 114963
Summary: RISCV -msave-restore -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not
emit save/restore library calls
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/650833.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f27fc59d9f7c735d200fda647a487850144b10eb
commit r15-209-gf27fc59d9f7c735d200fda647a487850144b10eb
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Mon May 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:adb1c8a0f167c3a1f7593d75f5a10eb07a5d741a
commit r15-208-gadb1c8a0f167c3a1f7593d75f5a10eb07a5d741a
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Mon May 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6634a409124a884ff66b3756568a7daae7d3c295
commit r15-211-g6634a409124a884ff66b3756568a7daae7d3c295
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Mon May 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93f6a47583f3fa8a1b66856ecb19ec28f26b2ba4
commit r15-210-g93f6a47583f3fa8a1b66856ecb19ec28f26b2ba4
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Mon May 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Status|REOP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> // PR c++/114962
Reduced much further and even removing the for loop and the array:
```
struct A {
void third();
using Handler = void (A::*)();
static con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103338
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Simon Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105229
--- Comment #6 from Simon Martin ---
The testcase ICEs with 11.3 (https://godbolt.org/z/qoYqK8zj9) but not 11.4
(https://godbolt.org/z/K8q6qYPba)
Will check if we need to add a new test case of it's already covered.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114177
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53026cbf08889d00fed34d8667796d22ef8554cf
commit r15-212-g53026cbf08889d00fed34d8667796d22ef8554cf
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111501
Christoph Müllner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111501
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
Awesome !
The trunk is open and new stuff, RISC-V certainly, is already landing, so no
harm in sending it now ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112868
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #13)
> I'm not that familiar with gcc development procedures. Do I understand you
> correctly, that a fix for this bug will not be included in gcc-14 (according
> to h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114964
Bug ID: 114964
Summary: Ada Address_To_Access_Conversions gnat_to_gnu_entity
internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85559
Bug 85559 depends on bug 78947, which changed state.
Bug 78947 Summary: sub-optimal code for (bool)(int ? int : int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
What|Removed |Added
---
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
