https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
--- Comment #8 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Thank you for reporting the issues and discussing the root causes.
It helped in preparing the patch.
The patch is under review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655807.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #11 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Thank you for reporting the issues and discussing the root causes.
It helped in preparing the patch.
The patch is under review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655807.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #12 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Thank you for reporting the issues and discussing the root causes.
It helped in preparing the patch.
The patch is under review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655807.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90343
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note changing the definition of initializer_list to:
```
template
class initializer_list
{
public:
const int *i2 () { return uk; }
const int *w2 () { return uk + in; }
private:
const E *uk;
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107432
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c320a7efcd35ba6c6be70dc9b2fe562a9673e363
commit r15-1677-gc320a7efcd35ba6c6be70dc9b2fe562a9673e363
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Thu Feb 1 15:15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107432
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4385dc97b0d28e54541eb2418d6e68fc672441d7
commit r15-1679-g4385dc97b0d28e54541eb2418d6e68fc672441d7
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Wed Mar 6 19:58:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107432
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c320a7efcd35ba6c6be70dc9b2fe562a9673e363
commit r15-1677-gc320a7efcd35ba6c6be70dc9b2fe562a9673e363
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Thu Feb 1 15:15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think we use a wrong ELSE value:
vect_b.19_54 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(vect_b_lsm.18_53);
vect__15.20_56 = .COND_ADD (loop_mask_55, { -1, ... }, vect_b.19_54, { -1,
... });
^^^
vect__8.21_57 = .COND_SUB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115675
Bug ID: 115675
Summary: truncv4hiv4qi affect r14-1402-gd8545fb2c71683's
optimization.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the issue is the SLP child order is different than the scalar stmt
operand order and inconsistent with what we have recorded in reduc_idx.
Likely because we do
t.c:6:23: note: pre-sorted chains of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103191
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fd84bc009b3073666a24047c78a04c19eeab752
commit r15-1689-g8fd84bc009b3073666a24047c78a04c19eeab752
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111250
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfc9fa3bdddc1af59b7854937b99516067fd8c63
commit r15-1688-gcfc9fa3bdddc1af59b7854937b99516067fd8c63
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115668
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dafa750c8a6f0a088677871bfaad054881737ab1
commit r15-1690-gdafa750c8a6f0a088677871bfaad054881737ab1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
> > > (simplify
> > > (vec_cond @0 @1 integer_all_ones_p)
> > > (bit_ior (view_convert @0) @1))
> > > ```
> >
> > Missing negate for the vector one?
>
> No because vector true is already -1 :).
I could be w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111250
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk. I think this would be good to backport so that we diagnose more
errors during constant evaluation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103191
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115676
Bug ID: 115676
Summary: gcc allows invalid calling to implicitly-deleted
default constructor of a template derived class in
template function
Product: gcc
Versio
LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240627 (experimental)
b55798c0fc5cb02512b58502961d8425fb60588f (Gentoo 15.0. p, commit
7760ff0bf2fd5fa05385fc11158cb7efd7a05cc5)
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58529
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58529&action=edit
core.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
```
==240== Command: /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15/cc1 -fpreprocessed
core.i -quiet -dumpbase core.i -dumpbase-ext .i -mtune=generic -march=x86-64
-flate-combine-instructions -o /tmp/ccLQtrdV.s
==2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115678
Bug ID: 115678
Summary: MIPS: Condition trap can optimize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Reduced:
```
void initialize() {}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
Inspired by Andrew's comments, it looks we can have:
c = x CMP y
r = c ? 0 : z => r = ~c & z (1)
r = c ? z : 0 => r = c & z (2)
r = c ? -1 : z => r = c | z (3)
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115664
--- Comment #6 from Pierre Ossman ---
Is there a cleaner way to can work around this than duplicating the affected
methods? I tried adding a #pragma, but that breaks older versions of gcc that
don't have -Wnonnull-compare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95faa1bea7bdc7f92fcccb3543bfcbc8184c5e5b
commit r15-1692-g95faa1bea7bdc7f92fcccb3543bfcbc8184c5e5b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I think the inversion code wants to check invert_tree_comparison and see if
the inverted compare is supported and only if not fall back to inverting the
comparison result (there is of course the multi-use c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115679
Bug ID: 115679
Summary: inlining failed in call to 'foo': function not
considered for inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #3 from Saulius Gražulis ---
Hi, Eric,
thank you for updating the bug #115666 status!
I am bit puzzled by your comment "nobody should write this sort of
things". Could you please let me know in somewhat more detail what was
wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115664
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
if constexpr (not is_same_v)
if (dynamic_cast(this) == nullptr)
throw Exception("Bad callback");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
Bug ID: 115680
Summary: ICE in on_ranges, at
analyzer/constraint-manager.cc:3166
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy ---
Created attachment 58531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58531&action=edit
.i file from save-temps containing pre-processed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #4 from Saulius Gražulis ---
Hi, Eric,
thank you for updating the bug #115666 status!
I am bit puzzled by your comment "nobody should write this sort of
things". Could you please let me know in somewhat more detail what was
wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy ---
gcc -std=gnu23 g.c -DEDITOR=0 -O3 -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -Wunused
-Wuninitialized -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Werror -march=native -mcpu=native
-mtune=native -pipe -funsigned-char -fwrapv -ffinite-math-only -mcmo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115664
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Even if you can't use C++17, it still works like this:
if (not std::is_same::value)
if (dynamic_cast(this) == nullptr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
I probably should have said "but nobody should write this sort of code."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/14.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-cpu=cort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58530|a-g.i |a-g.s
filename|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37475
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73ad57c244c283bf6da0c16630212f11b945eda5
commit r15-1693-g73ad57c244c283bf6da0c16630212f11b945eda5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58530|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #6 from Saulius Gražulis ---
On 2024-06-27 13:58, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
>
> --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I probably should have said "but nobody should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b70af0bd2e33e9cc20dae45c131429a402fc8845
commit r14-10352-gb70af0bd2e33e9cc20dae45c131429a402fc8845
Author: Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
--- Comment #2 from Saulius Gražulis ---
OK, I can confirm that GNAT 15.0 from the git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git master
no longer gas the bug, the finalization behaves as expected:
saulius@pterodaktilis queue-finlisation/ $
PATH=$HOME/install/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
--- Comment #3 from Saulius Gražulis ---
PS All other queues also behave as expected when compiled with GNAT 15.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3de1c4985bebd1882b6643789daba24f2d11bafe
commit r13-8872-g3de1c4985bebd1882b6643789daba24f2d11bafe
Author: Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95ca5f458251e21123e45ec52c38d629d39cd0e4
commit r12-10585-g95ca5f458251e21123e45ec52c38d629d39cd0e4
Author: Alexandre O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #19 from Rama Malladi ---
Thank you Hubicka@ for the inputs. I see your intent and that we have to
revisit the inline parameter tuning. As I and Richard S mentioned, the intent
of this feature request or PR is to expose such an optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7886830bb45c4f5dca0496d4deae9a45204d78f5
commit r15-1694-g7886830bb45c4f5dca0496d4deae9a45204d78f5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #0)
> But if you compile with `-std=c++20 -ULESS`, you get more verbose codegen:
> first a call to `It::operator+(int)`, then a call to `It::operator-(It)`,
> and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115681
Bug ID: 115681
Summary: libffi.closures/single_entry_structs2.c FAILs on
32-bit SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115681
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> We could just use while (__first != __last) instead, but that would remove a
> very intentional "optimization" that's explicitly mentioned in a comment:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99308
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115682
Bug ID: 115682
Summary: nvptx vs. "fwprop: invoke change_is_worthwhile to
judge if a replacement is worthwhile"
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #5 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> Yes, so that std::copy_n benefits from the same memmove optimization as
> std::copy.
Right, I'm not objecting to the memmove optimization, just to the current
codebase's approach of "slightly pessimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99710
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57482cadeb12af2dd52b381b0766776d1e8ec59b
commit r11-11541-g57482cadeb12af2dd52b381b0766776d1e8ec59b
Author: Iain Sandoe
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100772
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f647906ef227bc22af224d955a408d776cfddb04
commit r11-11542-gf647906ef227bc22af224d955a408d776cfddb04
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101765
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d5779274ce9807358f9e04f1112b65c6ed6c284
commit r11-11543-g1d5779274ce9807358f9e04f1112b65c6ed6c284
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104051
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4cdbf1f757fa9525d70780546d7daa43dfb129f
commit r11-11544-gf4cdbf1f757fa9525d70780546d7daa43dfb129f
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99710
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100772
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101765
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 101765, which changed state.
Bug 101765 Summary: ICE when using a VLA inside of a coroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101765
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104051
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115618
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c93a9bba743ac236f6045ba7aafbc12a83726c48
commit r13-8873-gc93a9bba743ac236f6045ba7aafbc12a83726c48
Author: Andrew Carlott
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115683
Bug ID: 115683
Summary: SSE2 regressions after obselete of vcond{,u,eq}.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115675
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104259
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e33ffd543257a1a599b51201e9db95b070dbf84
commit r11-11545-g6e33ffd543257a1a599b51201e9db95b070dbf84
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108860
Alexandre Duret-Lutz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adl at gnu dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115679
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> With -Og it's usually that the always-inline function is called indirectly -
> that's an unsupported case.
We can probably add CIF code for functions that were called indirectly
but are no more, so this is r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Djordje Baljozovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115634
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:187eeb99ec5289538923668de9d61a3138376817
commit r15-1695-g187eeb99ec5289538923668de9d61a3138376817
Author: Stefan Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6081ee665fd5e4e7d37e02c69d16df0d3eead10
commit r15-1696-gf6081ee665fd5e4e7d37e02c69d16df0d3eead10
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115677
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115457
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115475
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115364
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115684
Bug ID: 115684
Summary: No warning for pointer and enum field comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115685
Bug ID: 115685
Summary: [OpenMP][5.1][OpenACC] Permit named constants
("PARAMETER") in firstprivate, shared and copyin
clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115684
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
FWIW, IRL these cases happen during refactoring, when you factor out a code to
a smaller function, and some variables from the original function become
pointers. I honestly never even check the parame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115684
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the compile wants to vectorize the loop, knowing there are N iterations
helps. Using first != last as the condition isn't necessarily just a pointer
comparison for arbitrary random access iterators, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110498
Rogério de Souza Moraes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|13.1.0 |12.4.0
--- Comment #4 from Ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115686
Bug ID: 115686
Summary: gcc cannot generate weak link function for
thread_local variable `TLS init function`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #27 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5aa9ed0f353f835005c3df8932c7bc6e26f53904
commit r13-8874-g5aa9ed0f353f835005c3df8932c7bc6e26f53904
Author: Wilco Dijkstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115670
--- Comment #3 from Federico Kircheis ---
I've collected the example mentioned here and in my original report
https://godbolt.org/z/o4893zhPs
struct {
int i = 42;
} const a;
auto foo0(){
return a;
}
int foo1(decltype(a)&){
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115670
--- Comment #4 from Federico Kircheis ---
Sorry, I've posted the wrong link in the previous reply, this is the correct
one
https://godbolt.org/z/nhrM46ajs
Also
struct s2{
s i; //s is in anonymous namespace
};
s2 foo6(){
return
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
