https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 58210
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58210&action=edit
attempt to reduce redundancy
A failed attempt to avoid duplicate array cleanups in this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115096
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> the warning described in that bug is not occurring.
That is because in that case it had literally `(unsigned char**)&var` while in
this case it is spread across function calls and that would require a lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 115092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105760
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0003e469d4664397b65080a66ad7d6557bd7ffce
commit r15-495-g0003e469d4664397b65080a66ad7d6557bd7ffce
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #4 from Georg Sauthoff ---
Sam, thank you for the hint and surfacing it again.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
[..]
> I would prefer to do simply:
[..]
Yes, please go ahead with your approach.
> I think we're going t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
AK changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment #5 from AK --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #6 from AK ---
> We can use memchr to find a char in a range of signed char, or even to find
> an int in a range of signed char, as long as we're careful about values.
+1, this approach should fix the bug i reported
https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115089
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, adding -fno-analyzer-state-merge makes it find the issue; see
https://godbolt.org/z/Ecfe9oqjv
: In function 'main':
:16:16: warning: use of uninitialized value 'x' [CWE-457]
[-Wanalyzer-use-of-uniniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
Bug ID: 115097
Summary: Strange suboptimal codegen specifically at -O2 when
copying struct type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #16 from chenglulu ---
The performance degradation on LoongArch is caused by one commit：
commit e0e9499aeffdaca88f0f29334384aa5f710a81a4 (HEAD -> trunk)
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tue Mar 19 12:24:08 2024 +0100
tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114994
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6cc6d4741a880109c4e0e64d5a189687fb526f6
commit r15-498-gc6cc6d4741a880109c4e0e64d5a189687fb526f6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115098
Bug ID: 115098
Summary: std::vector::iterator::reference is
default-constructible
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |missed-optimization
--- Comment #17 from Xi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #18 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> Strangely PR114074 is a wrong-code (instead of missed-optimization) and
> reverting its fix seems improving performance for other targets...
This is very strange. I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115099
Bug ID: 115099
Summary: compilation error: format thread::id
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107563
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a71f90c5a7ae2942083921033cb23dcd63e70525
commit r15-499-ga71f90c5a7ae2942083921033cb23dcd63e70525
Author: Levy Hsu
Date: Thu May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115098
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
std::bitset has similar issues:
#include
std::bitset<1> bitset;
typename std::bitset<1>::reference bit_ref(bitset, 0); // well-formed in
libstdc++
https://godbolt.org/z/T4qvv8TcG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113719
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 58211
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58211&action=edit
A patch
Hi Rainer,
Could you try the attachment and see if the error was solved? I tested with
cross-compiled s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> And perhaps more importantly the mov can even be hoisted outside of a loop.
That won't be happening right away, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112304
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Patch posted:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/650081.html
Maybe it should be nonmemory_operand rather than general_operand ...
Or aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115100
Bug ID: 115100
Summary: non-target specific const_scalar_int_operand predicate
is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: docum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115091
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
maybe represent this in a more formal way:
node = __builtin_speculate (node + 1, node->next);
and in GIMPLE:
_1 = node + 1;
_2 = node->next;
node = .SPECULATE (_1, _2);
and during RTL expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115070
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115071
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105760
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115089
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Thanks, David! I'm happy that this might help improve the analyzer. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95024
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Sorry, I didn't make it clear; I somehow forgot about it.
Here's the problem:
$ cat err.c
int
main(void)
{
short s;
int *p;
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
