https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115925
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* x | C -> C if we know that x & ~C == 0. */
(simplify
(bit_ior SSA_NAME@0 INTEGER_CST@1)
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
&& wi::bit_and_not (get_nonzero_bits (@0), wi::to_wide (@1)) == 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 115925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115872
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f27bf48e0204524ead795fe618cd8b1224f72fd4
commit r15-2038-gf27bf48e0204524ead795fe618cd8b1224f72fd4
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58663&action=edit
Reduced testcase based on suggestion
Reduced testcase based on comment #8.
Notes on it, you need a and b be d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115863
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> > > Please note that w/o .SAT_TRUNC the compiler is able to optimize hot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|531.deepsjeng_r fails to|[14/15 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115049
--- Comment #13 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #12)
> Created attachment 58662 [details]
> test patch
This fixes the issue for me on x86_64-w64-mingw32.
Note this is actually not target-specific; all targets that implement
trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-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 20240715 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
--- Comment #3 from Bi6c ---
Created attachment 58664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58664&action=edit
reduced testcase
I reduced the testcase and removed the csmith dependency.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
--- Comment #4 from Bi6c ---
Created attachment 58665
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58665&action=edit
preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency
Preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
--- Comment #5 from Bi6c ---
The discrepancy also appeared when compiling with optimization level -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115928
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-15
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115843
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=115843
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The loops are
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
KnightMoves[i] = 0;
if (Rank(i) > 0) {
if (Rank(i) > 1) {
if (File(i) > 0) KnightMoves[i] |= Mask[i-17];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101992
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105406
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lbqq at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
--- Comment #7 from Michal Jankovič ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #6)
> hi, thanks for the patch. could you propose it on the ML? patches seldom
> get noticed here on BZ (see also https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html )
Hi, I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to user202729 from comment #16)
> That sound like a good idea, thanks. I thought about this some time earlier
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115413#c3) but I did not know
> how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-15
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115915
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The question is does that friend is naming `::extent` or is naming
> `std_1::extent` using the `using namespace` statement. I suspect GCC and EDG
> think it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Julien Blanc from comment #9)
> But i’d expect both checkers to detect such misuse.
No, Nathaniel is correct that there is no UB here, so nothing for the sanitizer
to complain about. The docu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102707
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Bug ID: 115934
Summary: [15 Regression] nvptx vs. ivopts: replace
constant_multiple_of with
aff_combination_constant_multiple_p [PR114932]
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115935
Bug ID: 115935
Summary: Extend lowering memset for array when it's a component
reference
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi, thanks for the report, could you tell me a target triple I can use for
nvptx?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #18 from user202729 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> I don't think that optimization would be valid. Users could do disgusting
> things like this (as long as sizeof(Base) == sizeof(Derived)):
>
> std::vector v(1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
The most simple one: '--target=nvptx-none'. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115936
Bug ID: 115936
Summary: [15 Regression] GCN vs. ivopts: replace
constant_multiple_of with
aff_combination_constant_multiple_p [PR114932]
Product: gcc
Version: 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to user202729 from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> The clause seems to apply just as well, you cannot access the newly
> constructed `Derived` object through `p`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115863
--- Comment #13 from Li Pan ---
Thanks Richard and Bizjak.
Got the point here, and let me have a try for the improvement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115937
Bug ID: 115937
Summary: duplicate .plt in module's elf header
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #37 from Mayshao-oc at zhaoxin dot com ---
vmovdqu is also atomic in Zhaoxin processors if it meets three requirements:
1. the address of its memory operand must be 16-byte aligned
2. vmovdqu is vex.128 not vex.256
3. the memory type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #38 from Mayshao-oc at zhaoxin dot com ---
vmovdqu is also atomic in Zhaoxin processors if it meets three requirements:
1. the address of its memory operand must be 16-byte aligned
2. vmovdqu is vex.128 not vex.256
3. the memory type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110635
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115936
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115929
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-15
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115938
Bug ID: 115938
Summary: gcc allows inheriting base class with private
destructor during virtual inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115843
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
t.c:9:17: note: misalignment for fully-masked loop: 15
so in the first iteration only the last element should be active. But
# loop_mask_58 = PHI <_100(10), { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }(2)>
# loop_mas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
--- Comment #9 from Arsen Arsenović ---
a ping might suffice then (Iain also wants to see this optimization, it'd seem)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #15 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> CC Maciej if he can test the patch on his Alpha system.
It takes about a day to complete and I had to rerun the libstdc++3
subdirectory due to an intermitte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115826
--- Comment #2 from Torbjorn SVENSSON ---
Adding /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ to
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-s1281.c did not change any of the
flags that gcc was invoked with.
I experimented a bit more and found that adding -fno-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115936
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104981
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114142
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 58666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58666&action=edit
Cleaned up testcase
Can you please test this slightly cleaned up testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #16)
> Can you please test this slightly cleaned up testcase?
Just put it in gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/alpha and do:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLASG=alpha.exp=pr115526.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLASG=alpha.exp=pr115526.c
s/RUNTESTFLASG/RUNTESTFLAGS/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
Bug ID: 115939
Summary: Cannot unambiguously compare iterators in
std::unordered_map with mapped type
std::expected>
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115940
Bug ID: 115940
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or
qual_union_type, have translation_unit_decl in
maybe_dummy_object, at cp/tree.cc:4379
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
This one looks a bit like costing,
before the patch IVopts had:
:
inv_expr 1: -element_7(D)
inv_expr 2: (signed int) rite_5(D) - (signed int) element_7(D)
and after the patch it generates a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115936
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
iv->step should never be a pointer type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112520
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115936
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> iv->step should never be a pointer type
That's what I initially thought too. My suspicion is that there is some code
that tries to create the 0 offset.
I'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112520
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Likely caused by a NULL argument passed to strcmp in get_field_by_name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #19 from Andreas K. Huettel ---
Sorry for the delay here, the machine I have access to is quite slow.
It spent ~2 days building unmodified git master and is now running the
testsuite as baseline...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104384
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brandt.milo2 at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||max at duempel dot org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107288
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107239
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hodges.r at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #10)
> possibly fixed in 13.1 by r13-4479-g58a7b1e354530d ?
>
> I cannot reproduce with https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49811
Indeed. I modified th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-15
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
--- Comment #2 from Sam Yates ---
Thank you for the prompt assessment! A standards proposal or DR does seem like
the more robust solution for the longer term.
In the interim, for my application, I am boxing-up the std::any in another
struct [1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115858
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 58668
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58668&action=edit
Add operator== overloads for hash table iterators
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Secondly,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115858
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #1)
> - clang: permits alloca in coroutines in many cases. by my crude testing,
> it seems to only fail if the size is dynamic and the use of the allocated
> region
that doesn't compile with gcc 15 trunk version
```
gcc-15/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 15.0.0 20240715 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115941
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is not related to PR 109247 since it is rejected in GCC 13.1.0 rather than
13.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115941
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It is not related to PR 109247 since it is rejected in GCC 13.1.0 rather
> than 13.3.0.
s/rather than 13.3.0/rather than just 13.3.0+/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97755
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
pedwarn does change into an error with -pedantic-errors .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rush102333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109573
--- Comment #15 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that we see this on powerpc64 if the compiler is built with checks.
/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-11.5.0-RC-20240712/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-11.5.0-RC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rush102333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115937
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I changed my gcc from 7.3.0 to 10.3.1 and recompiled kernel code.
Did you change binutils version too?
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
