https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115450
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115450
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
-Ofast -flto=auto -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b_zba_zbb_zbs_zicond_zfa
-ftree-vectorize -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl
For RISC-V issue only happens in a LTO build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
--- Comment #6 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Sorry for the regression.
I am working on the fix and will try to validate and submit it today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #6 from Sean Murthy ---
Additional info, just in case it helps. Either of the following changes to the
repro causes the reported error to disappear (not saying that either change is
universally acceptable, that is, they are not worka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115670
Bug ID: 115670
Summary: missed optimization - anonymous structures
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
With
static_assert(0==big_calc());// (1)
we evaluate the big_calc call twice. Once, while parsing the static_assert:
#0 cxx_eval_call_expression (ctx=0x7fffc3e0, t=,
lval=vc_prvalue,
non_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115658
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at honermann dot net
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90276
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:003ce8a6c4c28f8d285134afa9a423d0e234cf2e
commit r15-1664-g003ce8a6c4c28f8d285134afa9a423d0e234cf2e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90276
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e65b6627a36869b01bbe128a5324e4b415b28880
commit r15-1665-ge65b6627a36869b01bbe128a5324e4b415b28880
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Bisected down to r15-1602-ged20feebd9ea31
commit ed20feebd9ea31d58861f61205bd412b0c3febd0
Author: Evgeny Karpov
Date: Mon Jun 24 12:46:54 2024 +
Adjust DLL import/export implementation for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #5)
> Bisected down to r15-1602-ged20feebd9ea31
> +#define PE_COFF_EXTERN_DECL_SHOULD_BE_LEGITIMIZED \
> + ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC || ix86_cmodel == C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Nicholas Fraser from comment #0)
Behavior confirmed on Compiler Explorer with trunk (for GCC 15); URLs as
follows:
>
> gcc a.c
https://godbolt.org/z/rxbz5eWMd
> gcc -Wfatal-errors a.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #7 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Thanks for pointing that out! The fix will be included in the patch that fixes
the regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The "in expansion of macro ‘FOO’" notes (messages 2 and 4) are coming from the
diagnostic finalizer, and so they are effectively printed as part of the first
"error" (message 1) and the "previous declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
In particular, consider e.g. the cases of SARIF and json output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Evgeny Karpov from comment #7)
> Thanks for pointing that out! The fix will be included in the patch that
> fixes the regression.
While there, can you perhaps rename:
PE_COFF_EXTERN_DECL_SHOULD_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115670
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simplified case too:
```
auto bar(){
struct {int i;} t;
t.i = 0;
return t;
}
```
This should be local linkage.
Another testcase:
```
namespace {
struct a {int t = 12;};
}
auto bar(){
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #9 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Sure, it will be included in the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|riscv*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 58523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58523&action=edit
WIP patch to try to print all notes for an error with -Wfatal-errors
Am attaching an experimental patch for thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97687
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> scope of the auto_diagnostic_context.
^^^
auto_diagnostic_group
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #10 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Evgeny Karpov from comment #9)
> Sure, it will be included in the patch.
What's the progression of GCC for aarch64-windows-gnu? How long would it be
done? I want to buy a surface pro 11 to use it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #11 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Evgeny Karpov from comment #9)
> Sure, it will be included in the patch.
BTW, any plans for riscv and loongarch support for Windows GCC?
le-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240626 (experimental) (GCC)
[649] %
[649] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115636
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking at what LLVM does (Note it does not handle the original case here).
It only handles the simple:
`1 << (a ? b : 1000)` cases.
That is:
```
int f0(int a, int b)
{
if (a) b = 1000;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=11566
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |Evgeny.Karpov at
microsoft dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
Bug ID: 115672
Summary: Incorrect template type parameter deduced in
non-deduced context if class template has template
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
--- Comment #1 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58525&action=edit
Pre-processed file for repro source
Produced with GCC 14.1. static_asserts adjusted (negations where it fails
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
--- Comment #2 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58526&action=edit
Compiler output for the repro
Produced with GCC 14.1. static_asserts adjusted (negations where it fails
incorrec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115373
Thiago Jung Bauermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago.bauermann at linaro dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115582
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58527
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58527&action=edit
Remove the inline and change the static_assert to what other compilers should
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|Incorrect templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58527|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113325
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|aarch64-w64-mingw32 support |[15 regression]
|today br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Yeah, just confirmed it works with
https://github.com/gentoo/gcc-patches/commit/e35c53788a928179ef26b76833bcbe297f84fe6a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115672
--- Comment #6 from Sean Murthy ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Created attachment 58528 [details]
> Reduced further
>
> The second t argument type in the template definition is the key I think.
> Changing it to just class all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
--- Comment #8 from Collin Funk ---
Thanks for the add. My change was just adding nullptr since it can be used in C
code (per C23). I agree with most of the other comments. Probably excessive for
-Wall and -Wextra since the idiom exists in old co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115671
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24666
Bug 24666 depends on bug 115594, which changed state.
Bug 115594 Summary: requires expression permits arrays of voids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115594
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 115594, which changed state.
Bug 115594 Summary: requires expression permits arrays of voids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115594
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Bug ID: 115673
Summary: [15 regression]
gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c test failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
$ diff -u <(gcc-14
/home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -mforce-indirect-call -fPIC -ffat-lto-objects
-fno-ident -S -o -) <(/tmp/build/gcc/xg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115674
Bug ID: 115674
Summary: "Checking if number is within interval" missed
optimization when number is from a smaller int type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
To the reporter: I should say, thanks for finding this so quickly - it made it
a lot easier to debug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115450
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115214
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jiawei from comment #2)
> Fixed on upstream.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/652806.html
Since you backported the fix for GCC 14.2.0
(r14-10350-g6e6f10c3ad6f96752acd9c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115493
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7ba0670a768e76e87e04cfd6a72c28c35333b54
commit r15-1669-gb7ba0670a768e76e87e04cfd6a72c28c35333b54
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7cb0dd94589ab501bca27f93641b4074e5a2e99
commit r15-1670-gc7cb0dd94589ab501bca27f93641b4074e5a2e99
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
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=115671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
>c = x CMP y
>r = c ? -1 : z => r = c ? c : z
>r = c ? z : 0 => r = c ? z : c
>
> this is probably best left for ISEL. I agree the transforms elim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
No. The fallout was never resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115462
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8153b5417bed02f47354a14ad36100785dfdc47
commit r15-1673-gb8153b5417bed02f47354a14ad36100785dfdc47
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 115462, which changed state.
Bug 115462 Summary: [15 regression] 416.gamess regressed 4-6% on x86_64 since
r15-882-g1d6199e5f8c1c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115462
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115462
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I can reproduce on aarch64 with -O2 -march=armv8.3-a+sve -fno-vect-cost-model
-fwrapv. The reduction is
[local count: 955630224]:
# b_lsm.9_11 = PHI <_9(7), pretmp_42(6)>
_4 = *_3;
_5 = (signed i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I think this could help scalar code too:
> ```
> int a[1], b[1], c[1];
>
> void
> test (void)
> {
> a[0] = (b[0] == c[0]) ? -1 : a[0];
> }
>
> void
> test1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Note I think this could help scalar code too:
> > ```
> > int a[1], b[1], c[1];
> >
> > void
> > test (void)
> > {
>
101 - 177 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
