https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116199
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Definitely a latent bug in reload. Looks like it's been around since the
conversion to SUBREG_BYTE back in 2001! We're blindly using
subreg_regno_offset on a case that can't be simplified. We should be c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116202
Bug ID: 116202
Summary: RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3 with zvl256b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Thank you as ever.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116182
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bootstrap-lto should set a |bootstrap-lto should set a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a53c029bf855fd4250076a07d0d8150b9c39bc91
commit r15-2705-ga53c029bf855fd4250076a07d0d8150b9c39bc91
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
Bug ID: 116203
Summary: libsanitizer fails to build for aarch64 (14.2) with
__NR_newfstatat was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Also note that this can only be triggered with a Linux 6.11-rc1 or a linux.git
snapshot, they are not official kernel releases so they are more likely to be
buggy than GCC 14.2 (which is an official GCC release)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
--- Comment #5 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
Hi Andrew, thanks for looking in to this so quickly. I can confirm that it is
indeed the 6.11-rc1 kernel alongside both gcc-14.1 and gcc-14.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116007
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does it also work if you spell the option name correctly? All unknown
configure
options are always accepted silently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
expr_hash_table has a different order depending on debug and non-debug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note cprop.cc also allocates the hashtable a similar way but its walk over the
hashtable is ok because it does not allocate psedu-registers based on the
order.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code for get_max_insn_count is the following:
```
int
get_max_insn_count (void)
{
int n = cur_insn_uid;
/* The table size must be stable across -g, to avoid codegen
differences due to debug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
make_insn_raw: cur_uid: 1084
make_insn_raw: cur_debug_uid: 21
make_insn_raw: cur_uid: 1085
make_insn_raw: cur_debug_uid: 21
cannot propagate from insn 1022 into insn 19: would increase complexity of
pattern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58808&action=edit
Fix to sh_recog_treg_set_expr
The problem is sh_recog_treg_set_expr is called from rtx_costs which sometimes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116204
Bug ID: 116204
Summary: RISC-V: rv32 miscompile at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> ```
> (gdb) condition 1 x_rtl.emit.x_cur_insn_uid==1083
>
> #0 make_insn_raw (pattern=0x77570858) at ../../gcc/emit-rtl.cc:4137
> #1 0x01f10469 in sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116204
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116204
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is long is 32bit on ILP32 targets while 64bit on LP64 targets.
So the difference between RV32 and RV64 is rather the size of long being
different rather than a miscompiling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116155
--- Comment #11 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Dimitar Dimitrov from comment #9)
> > For pru:
> > sizeof (int) = 4
> > __alignof__ (int) = 1
> >
> > From gcc/config/pru.h:
> > #define INT_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116204
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Ah - thanks for the quick correction. I had forgotten about that difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 107356 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116205
Bug ID: 116205
Summary: pru: Bit field layout not conforming to TI ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116205
Dimitar Dimitrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it should be even fixed already:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=343416f0c11c42bed07f6db03ca599f4f1771b17
but haven't verified that yet.
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
