https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116640
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Joshua from comment #16)
> I took out -fpie and the output assembly was different and the binary
> started working. That is contrary to the documentation which says you need
> -fpie for posit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> Which documentation? The official manual on gcc.gnu.org documents the
> behaviour of hostel GCC,
Gah, phone autocorrect.
s/hostel/upstream/ !!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And s/big/bug/g
I'll stop fighting my phone now since I'm probably not helping here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116631
Sofian Touhami changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
Bug ID: 116645
Summary: Huge performance loss after 13.2.0 compiler upgrade
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
--- Comment #1 from Jörn Langheinrich ---
Created attachment 59077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59077&action=edit
ii-file created by -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #25 from Joshua ---
Guys, I goofed and don't know what I actually did.
I failed to reset one of the other hypotheses after finding the problem in the
disassembly. On re-unpacking the archive containing the reproduction I
uploaded, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Huge performance loss after |[13/14/15 regression] Huge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
--- Comment #3 from Jörn Langheinrich ---
Created attachment 59078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59078&action=edit
Output from -ftime-report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
Mital Ashok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mital at mitalashok dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116635
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #237 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #236)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #235)
> > Not sure though whether this is related at all. Will go back to the know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116646
Bug ID: 116646
Summary: Compilation of code inside if constexpr with failed
condition.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116646
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It works when y is dependent though:
```
template
void f() {
if constexpr(y<0)
{
static_assert(y<0);
}
}
auto t = &f<0>;
```
I think since it is not dependent, it ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113174
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #26 from Joshua ---
I've been wondering how to fix this item. Having found the faulting assembly
code; vfork is incidental to the problem. Removing vfork simply preterbs it
away not actually fixing.
I actually hit this once before w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116621
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa7bbb065c63aa802e0bbb04d605407dad58cf94
commit r15-3537-gfa7bbb065c63aa802e0bbb04d605407dad58cf94
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Sep 6 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5ed381d05e0ed9edf2f320b71f8775ea96a4866
commit r14-10655-gb5ed381d05e0ed9edf2f320b71f8775ea96a4866
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116320
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:149d87fbe661da29d8a0aa671b42bd532206a8b8
commit r14-10656-g149d87fbe661da29d8a0aa671b42bd532206a8b8
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116320
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE: |[12/13 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116635
--- Comment #1 from Hu Lin ---
According to the results from https://godbolt.org/z/eKnvraP8T and
https://godbolt.org/z/G6MTWKf4P, certain options such as -march=armv8-m.base
and -mtune=cortex-m23 influence the structure of the code in the ccp1 p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116647
Bug ID: 116647
Summary: Internal compiler error in operator[], at vec.h:910
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116648
Bug ID: 116648
Summary: unswitch does not handle `if (a & b)` where a is
invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Build your program as a static PIE and use assembly (or a very limited C
subset) to relocate itself on startup. In a static PIE there are only relative
relocs, and it's fairly easy to handle relative relocs ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116648
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should say I noticed this while looking into PR 116647. Fixing this will
almost definitely make PR 116647 latent though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #28 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #27)
> Build your program as a static PIE and use assembly (or a very limited C
> subset) to relocate itself on startup. In a static PIE there are only
> relative relocs, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is: `-static -pie` which should remove the requirement of
`-Wl,--no-dynamic-linker` too.
Basically a (non-static) PIE binary requires using the dynamic loader to do the
relocations while a static PIE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #30 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #29)
> That is: `-static -pie` which should remove the requirement of
> `-Wl,--no-dynamic-linker` too.
>
> Basically a (non-static) PIE binary requires using the dynamic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Summary|GNAT fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103833
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Same issue in Clang has been fixed:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52883
Another observation is that `(&(A::m))(0)` was always supported by Clang and
MSVC. Demo: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/q16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116635
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116617
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91bc2ad28c58ca3f4c2f96601d8af51f570e08c4
commit r15-3539-g91bc2ad28c58ca3f4c2f96601d8af51f570e08c4
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116617
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3951efed1cce970a5c61eacbad7e5f5314a9fc17
commit r14-10658-g3951efed1cce970a5c61eacbad7e5f5314a9fc17
Author: Haochen Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|15.0|
Summary|wrong code with -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116617
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a16b1b97c112e41a0d37235e83678a67abd9454
commit r13-9011-g0a16b1b97c112e41a0d37235e83678a67abd9454
Author: Haochen Jiang
40 matches
Mail list logo
