https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #62 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #61)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #60)
> > I came up with the following draft for the documentation of the new
> > __builtin_get_counted_by, let me know your com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58863&action=edit
Just this file with `-Ofast -msve-vector-bits=128 -march=armv9-a`
[apinski@xeond2 t]$ ../xgcc -B.. t2.c -Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58864
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58864&action=edit
Reduced testcase
`-Ofast -msve-vector-bits=128 -march=armv9-a -fno-vect-cost-model `
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-07
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116015
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #63 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #62)
> What's the value of returning NULL instead of just failing the compilation
> with an error?
It's so that the same allocator macros can be used for FAM structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #64 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #63)
> (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #62)
> > What's the value of returning NULL instead of just failing the compilation
> > with an error?
>
> It's so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #65 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #64)
> How about having two macros? One that works for non-attributed pointers,
> and other that works for attributed ones. And use the appropriate one for
> each o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #144 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
It seems that all ICEs in the log in c#142 are the pcrel call issues described
in c#129 which could be avoided with the patch 58831.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
In C++20 mode it works because of the default ctor guide
[over.match.class.deduct]/1.2: "If C is not defined or does not declare any
constructors, an additional function template derived as above from a
hypo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116277
Bug ID: 116277
Summary: "may be used uninitialized
[-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]" instead of
-Werror=dangling-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116277
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116277
--- Comment #3 from Frank Heckenbach ---
When 63446 was reported, gcc didn't have -Werror=dangling-reference, so a false
positive was perhaps better than no warning in this case back then. Now it has
the proper warning for this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115062
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116277
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Frank Heckenbach from comment #3)
> When 63446 was reported, gcc didn't have -Werror=dangling-reference, so a
> false positive was perhaps better than no warning in this case back then.
> Now it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
Bug ID: 116278
Summary: [15] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O2 -fwrapv
-fno-strict-aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116275
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Thank you Roger!
Reduced:
```
struct SymbolDesc push_back(SymbolDesc);
struct SymbolDesc {
long long ELFLocalSymIdx;
};
struct Expected {
long long &operator*();
};
void SymbolizableObjectFileaddSymbol() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be a SAT_ADD issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116279
Bug ID: 116279
Summary: Branch coverage measure is reported in inconsistent
ways for comma operators
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #2)
> Hi Pan, could you take a look to see if it related to SAT_ADD?
Ack, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
lb a1,0(a5) // load -40
lui a0,%hi(.LC0)
lui a4,%hi(c)
addia5,a1,9 //a5 = -31
sllia5,a5,48
srlia5,a5,48 // a5 = -31
sltua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116280
Bug ID: 116280
Summary: [15 Regression] RISC-V: expected mode RVVMF8QI for
operand 2 of insn pred_vwsllrvvmf4hi but got mode
RVVMF2SI
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #5 from Li Pan ---
Reproduced from both qemu and hardware, let me take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #6 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> lb a1,0(a5) // load -40
> lui a0,%hi(.LC0)
> lui a4,%hi(c)
> addia5,a1,9 //a5 = -31
> sllia5,a5,48
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #7 from Li Pan ---
The backend take
rtx xmode_x = gen_lowpart (Xmode, x);
For the incoming op of .SAT_ADD, thus I think we should take lbu instead of lb
according to the ISA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116278
--- Comment #8 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #7)
> The backend take
> rtx xmode_x = gen_lowpart (Xmode, x);
>
> For the incoming op of .SAT_ADD, thus I think we should take lbu instead of
> lb according to the ISA.
During u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Even if you add support for V2HI bswap, it won't help vectorization without
support for V4QI vectors and permutations, because vectorizable_bswap won't
recognize the bswap capability of the target a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116281
Bug ID: 116281
Summary: Comma operator used in the middle operand of a
conditional expression is incorrectly rejected in non
static data member initializer
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG also rejects it:
```
"", line 3: error: expected an identifier
int y=0?0,0:0;
^
```
Are you sure this is valid code and not a bug in clang?
Especially when 3 out of the 4 major fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116281
--- Comment #2 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> EDG also rejects it:
> ```
> "", line 3: error: expected an identifier
> int y=0?0,0:0;
> ^
> ```
>
>
> Are you sure this is valid code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116191
Levi Morrison changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||morrison.levi at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116282
Bug ID: 116282
Summary: [15 Regression] RISC-V rv64id_zba_zbkb ICE: could not
split insn
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116252
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114950
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c592310d5275e09977504c136419686bd2277af0
commit r15-2807-gc592310d5275e09977504c136419686bd2277af0
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115801
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79209273663672ff05663554741fd2558b4aac99
commit r15-2808-g79209273663672ff05663554741fd2558b4aac99
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114950
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nshead at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 114950, which changed state.
Bug 114950 Summary: [modules] ICE in binding_cmp when merging friend functions
in partitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114950
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115801
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 115801, which changed state.
Bug 115801 Summary: [modules] segfault instantiating a template with a
templated friend declaration referring to an unexported template using a
qualified name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116275
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
(Make SymbolAddressOrErr a parameter for it to be well-defined.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #145 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #144)
> It seems that all ICEs in the log in c#142 are the pcrel call issues
> described in c#129 which could be avoided with the patch 58831.
OK, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115062
--- Comment #2 from Nathaniel Shead ---
This minimal patch fixes the (reduced) issue:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/class.cc b/gcc/cp/class.cc
index 718601756dd..81429f3a73b 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/class.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/class.cc
@@ -2312,6 +2312,7 @@ fixup_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116283
Bug ID: 116283
Summary: [15 Regression] RISC-V rv64id_zbs ICE: unrecognizable
insn
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
101 - 149 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
