https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #2 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #1)
> RISC-V has this problem, too.
> Maybe we can try to combine it in `combine` pass, while it may be not easy.
> It may break some code like:
>
> ```
> int f1();
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09ae36461ed34f343f2d8299bad7e394cccf996e
commit r15-1004-g09ae36461ed34f343f2d8299bad7e394cccf996e
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #3 from Siarhei Volkau ---
I know that the patch breaks condmove cases, that's why it is silly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d92b508dd19daffedfc0fb02e5bfa710f2c397b0
commit r14-10274-gd92b508dd19daffedfc0fb02e5bfa710f2c397b0
Author: Rainer Orth
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114886
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e80523288c9967a5fa6d6e27609cc4b1f1aef8d4
commit r14-10275-ge80523288c9967a5fa6d6e27609cc4b1f1aef8d4
Author: Rainer Orth
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114886
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: email at miropalmu dot cc
Target Milestone: ---
Following compiles on a GCC 15.0.0 20240604 without warnings with flags
-std=c++26 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic (https
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: email at miropalmu dot cc
Target Milestone: ---
Following compiles on a GCC 15.0.0 20240604 without warnings with flags
-std=c++26 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115305
--- Comment #9 from Marc Poulhiès ---
cxa4001 should be fixed since
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=e0ab5ee9bed5cbad9ae344a23ff0d302b8279d32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340
Bug ID: 115340
Summary: Loop/SLP vectorization possible inefficiency
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f510e59db482456160b8a63dc083c78b0c1f6c09
commit r12-10488-gf510e59db482456160b8a63dc083c78b0c1f6c09
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dfaa13455d67646805bc611aa4373728a460a37d
commit r12-10489-gdfaa13455d67646805bc611aa4373728a460a37d
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-04
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113910
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db0f236aa1c30f703ff564960bd9f3dbd747ea7b
commit r12-10490-gdb0f236aa1c30f703ff564960bd9f3dbd747ea7b
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110381
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6d889a8e609710ecfd555778fbff602b2c7d74
commit r12-10491-g8f6d889a8e609710ecfd555778fbff602b2c7d74
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112732
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b46486ef0316240eb3c173bda062b52333507e03
commit r12-10492-gb46486ef0316240eb3c173bda062b52333507e03
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97990
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7627054b9ee2ded8a22340a6a09bf9786afcafa
commit r12-10493-gc7627054b9ee2ded8a22340a6a09bf9786afcafa
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] double |[11 Regression] double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113910
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e36cf4c5c9140915d001db132a900b48037
commit r15-1007-g8e36cf4c5c9140915d001db132a900b48037
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115341
Bug ID: 115341
Summary: [15 regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-2.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115341
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115322
--- Comment #2 from 孙东亚 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Does adding -fno-strict-aliasing help?
After adding this compilation option, the same error will still be reported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Resolved on trunk, will backport later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115341
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113715
Fei Gao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaofei at eswincomputing dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115342
Bug ID: 115342
Summary: [14/15 Regression] AArch64: Function multiversioning
initialization incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
in foobar::tag should merge them and not be ambiguous.
However GCC 15.0.0 20240604 gives error about ambiguity.
```https://godbolt.org/z/fsK7ET4bY
struct tag { };
struct foo {
using tag = tag;
};
struct bar {
using tag = tag;
};
struct foobar : foo, bar { };
int main() {
foobar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #10 from Thorsten Otto ---
In my case it didn't fix the issue. I still get
internal compiler error: in emit, at tree-switch-conversion.cc:1637
when i configure it atleast with --enable-checking=misc
So i can just repeat myself: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58339&action=edit
gcc15-pr115337-1.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58340&action=edit
gcc15-pr115337-2.patch
Fixes for some formatting issues I found during the debugging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58341&action=edit
gcc15-pr115337-3.patch
Improve ranger handling of .CLZ (x, -1). As the stdbit.h builtins now use
that value,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58342&action=edit
gcc15-pr115337-4.patch
And finally, I think tree_call_expr_nonzero can handle CTZ the same as CLZ now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #8 from user202729 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> Thanks for the patch, but patch review happens on the mailing list, not in
> bugzilla. Please repost to gcc-patches as documented in the submission
> guidelines,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90072
--- Comment #2 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Created attachment 58343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58343&action=edit
Fix memory leak.
Patch submitted. Waiting for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90072
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8e28381cb5c0cddfe5201faf799d8b27f5d7d6c
commit r15-1009-gb8e28381cb5c0cddfe5201faf799d8b27f5d7d6c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67051
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I believe that there was some discussion on this in the past. I would be quite
happy to change the predicate to be more aggressive. Current code basically
duplicates what original fold-const.c did.
One proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Doing global flag has a problem since with LTO or using optimize
attribute user may mix code compiled with and without sane operator new.
When function with insane operator new gets inlined to a function wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #4 from David Brown ---
I'm not personally particularly interested in performance on x86 systems - my
work is in embedded microcontroller programming. But I did push for
"-fno-common" to be the default in gcc because "-fcommon" grea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63700
--- Comment #3 from Walter Zimmer ---
Still, we're looking for a way to accomplish this. Any news? I didn't see
anything concerning stack size in the current OpenMP docs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But replacing operator new is a global property of the program. It seems to me
that any translation unit claiming that operator new is sane must imply that
it's sane globally.
It doesn't make sense for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If a program really does need to ensure a particular TU assumes new can modify
global memory (e.g. in the TU defining operator new, which makes use of some
data structure) then that TU should probably be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If the
former, then I agree it is a global property (or at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Something is still very wrong with this test: it FAILs not only on Solaris/x86,
but also Solaris/SPARC and Linux/x86_64, always with a SEGV.
Looking closer, I checked the 32-bit Solaris/x86 test, which SEGVs i
> Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
> new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If
> the
> former, then I agree it is a global property (or at least a per shared
> library/binary property, one can arrange stuff with symbol vis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
> new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If
> the
> former, then I agree it is a global property
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115325
--- Comment #2 from Jan Wassenberg ---
Thanks, we are equipped to use pragma GCC target as soon as it is ready. Is
there any bug/tracker to which I could subscribe for updates on that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's not the way we do things. And my bootstraps on m68k are working fine.
Last one was 6 days ago.
This needs to be debugged by someone with the time/interest on the m68k.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115344
Bug ID: 115344
Summary: Missing loop counter reversal
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:741ea10418987ac02eb8e680f2946a6e5928eb23
commit r11-11465-g741ea10418987ac02eb8e680f2946a6e5928eb23
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1fb76e041740e7dd8cdf71dff3ae7aa31b3ea9b
commit r11-11468-ga1fb76e041740e7dd8cdf71dff3ae7aa31b3ea9b
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108086
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66d01cc3f4a248ccc471a978f0bfe3615c3f3a30
commit r11-11467-g66d01cc3f4a248ccc471a978f0bfe3615c3f3a30
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95e4252f53bc0e5b66a200c611fd2c9f6f7f2a62
commit r11-11466-g95e4252f53bc0e5b66a200c611fd2c9f6f7f2a62
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112593
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #1)
>> The test also FAILs on Solaris 11.4, both sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit.
>> However,
>> the fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 113281, which changed state.
Bug 113281 Summary: [11 Regression] Latent wrong code due to vectorization of
shift reduction and missing promotions since r9-1590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109939
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110838
Bug 110838 depends on bug 113281, which changed state.
Bug 113281 Summary: [11 Regression] Latent wrong code due to vectorization of
shift reduction and missing promotions since r9-1590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108086
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Otto ---
Can you try to compile the date_is_valid() snippet in comment#7?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b82a816000791e7a286c7836b3a473ec0e2a577b
commit r15-1011-gb82a816000791e7a286c7836b3a473ec0e2a577b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:181861b072ff1ef650c1a9d0290a4a672b9e747c
commit r15-1013-g181861b072ff1ef650c1a9d0290a4a672b9e747c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591d30c5c97e757f63ce0d99ae9a3dbe8c75a50a
commit r15-1014-g591d30c5c97e757f63ce0d99ae9a3dbe8c75a50a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
commit r14-10276-g14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
commit r14-10276-g14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7dd44c02ec1047166b4bacc3faa6255c816da2a
commit r14-10277-ga7dd44c02ec1047166b4bacc3faa6255c816da2a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9af4a05e027a8b797628f1a2c39ef0b28dc36d9
commit r14-10279-gf9af4a05e027a8b797628f1a2c39ef0b28dc36d9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a88e13bd7e0f50011e7f7f6e05c6f5e2a031143c
commit r14-10280-ga88e13bd7e0f50011e7f7f6e05c6f5e2a031143c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Bug 115092 depends on bug 114902, which changed state.
Bug 114902 Summary: [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp
-fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2197814011eec75022aa8550f10621409b69d4a1
commit r15-1015-g2197814011eec75022aa8550f10621409b69d4a1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression] PCH of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed now.
I think we want to backport the fold-const.cc first patch to older branches
too, but it will be different there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Bug ID: 115345
Summary: [12/13/14 REGRESSION] / Different outputs compared to
GCC 11- and MSVC/Clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6e6258ea43299399074f8d5f48697b5bc26064e
commit r14-10281-gc6e6258ea43299399074f8d5f48697b5bc26064e
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Djordje Baljozovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/IUPAC-In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #2 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
Created attachment 58345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58345&action=edit
Example of differences in output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #3 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #1)
> I am attaching an example of the differences in gcc_crash_report.txt for the
> input file sid_453841144.sdf in a separate attachment.
See attachment b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #4 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #3)
> (In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #1)
> > I am attaching an example of the differences in gcc_crash_report.txt for the
> > input file sid_45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=06
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfbd8735359d84a2d716549415eac70e885167bf
commit r15-1016-gcfbd8735359d84a2d716549415eac70e885167bf
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=06
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97385
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105274
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #6 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for what we need, we need a
> self-contained preprocessed testcase, which you haven't provided.
> You should start by c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It does work for me on x86_64 GNU/Linux. The big stack allocation is handled
by the split-stack support.
This of course leaves the question of why it is making such a large stack
allocation to begin with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> It does work for me on x86_64 GNU/Linux. The big stack allocation is handled
> by the split-stack support.
I think I see what's happening
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
