https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, it does seem to be a correctness issue as well, I see multiple execute
FAILs in the gcc.dg/vect testsuite when removing the check and running with
-march=rv64gcv.
So I would have expected, similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-13
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703
--- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
May be related to:
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1485
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703
Bug ID: 116703
Summary: Use of enum from a template instantiation fails for no
apparent reason
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116697
--- Comment #2 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
When we say "uninitialized", we refer to a specific data access, i.e. when a
certain operation uses an object whose value is unspecified as input. With some
stretch, you could consider a mere load of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC expects this to be:
template<>
enum foo::named : int {
named1 = 123,
named2 = 456,
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703
--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
I see... well:
1. Perhaps the error message could be rephrased or expanded?
2. Do you believe that is indeed a valid expectation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
Bug ID: 116704
Summary: Missed optimization: Setting return value to 0 on both
branches of a condition
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #29 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5938e0681c3907b2771ce6717988416b0ddd2f54
commit r15-3624-g5938e0681c3907b2771ce6717988416b0ddd2f54
Author: Giuseppe D'Angelo
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5938e0681c3907b2771ce6717988416b0ddd2f54
commit r15-3624-g5938e0681c3907b2771ce6717988416b0ddd2f54
Author: Giuseppe D'Angelo
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115860
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46c2538435dfc50dd5c67c4e03ce387d1f6ebe9b
commit r15-3626-g46c2538435dfc50dd5c67c4e03ce387d1f6ebe9b
Author: Stefan Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115860
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1)
> If you're interested you might want to test a patch from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116650
> which came up during m68k vs LRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115527
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1880ff0dbd814cf1e7dd53dd810f372a94d66d39
commit r13-9019-g1880ff0dbd814cf1e7dd53dd810f372a94d66d39
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116287
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5839cad7886c0277c111d96cc99c400f6f36b9d
commit r13-9022-ge5839cad7886c0277c111d96cc99c400f6f36b9d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aaa82d63fed5978a0bc7136a3922d280576ce257
commit r13-9020-gaaa82d63fed5978a0bc7136a3922d280576ce257
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116061
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5a9c15266ba70b3a4cbc0f8e6bc8537c9b1c12d
commit r13-9021-ge5a9c15266ba70b3a4cbc0f8e6bc8537c9b1c12d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5a9c15266ba70b3a4cbc0f8e6bc8537c9b1c12d
commit r13-9021-ge5a9c15266ba70b3a4cbc0f8e6bc8537c9b1c12d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116449
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:973c6ea242cea7d95c2888ec6dde39b5cbb9dbb3
commit r13-9024-g973c6ea242cea7d95c2888ec6dde39b5cbb9dbb3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116614
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b4a7d907d90ba7b7787433ab66eaf6112c33ffb
commit r13-9023-g9b4a7d907d90ba7b7787433ab66eaf6112c33ffb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116678
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7b67732e20217196f2a13a10fc3df4605b2b2ab
commit r15-3628-gb7b67732e20217196f2a13a10fc3df4605b2b2ab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116681
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] wrong|[12 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116678
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed (hopefully) on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116661
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99988464fc86354f0359c0fd91eee444fb5bd8a2
commit r15-3630-g99988464fc86354f0359c0fd91eee444fb5bd8a2
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115010
--- Comment #19 from Thorsten Otto ---
Bisecting gave me:
>From dba20679f1bf138ab5e61ad131b887db42083174 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xianmiao Qu
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:22:21 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] Re-add calling emit_clobber in l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116636
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression]
|D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ee692337c4ec18fe9be3df34f3607ea3de5ef93
commit r15-3631-g4ee692337c4ec18fe9be3df34f3607ea3de5ef93
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #5 from Barry Revzin ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116695
Paul Keir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 116695, which changed state.
Bug 116695 Summary: [c++11/c++14] Undefined behaviour involving unsequenced
side effects on a memory location during constant evaluation should not compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
Paul Keir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59106
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59106&action=edit
patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #4 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116705
Bug ID: 116705
Summary: Incorrect error in omp target teams distribute
parallel do
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> NOTE on this is just a small size optimization and on modern processors the
> setting of register to 0 is free.
You mean, not taking cycles on a functional uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116706
Bug ID: 116706
Summary: Unable to fill allocatable array component of a
derived type instance in a pointer array within a
derived type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The register is assigned to 0 during rename stage and then removed from the
rest of the pipeline as it has no effect otherwise. Only hw single step will
cause it to be executed. Yes it will take up a slot fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116707
Bug ID: 116707
Summary: [15 regression]
c-c++-common/torture/builtin-clear-padding-3.c fails
after r13-9019-g1880ff0dbd814c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Version|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59107&action=edit
Mostly reduced
This is as far as I got. No more includes and less 40 lines.
And yes I think it is valid (had t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59107|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59108|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116708
Bug ID: 116708
Summary: Documentation for -msse4 and -mno-sse4
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116708
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
msse4.1
Target Mask(ISA_SSE4_1) Var(ix86_isa_flags) Save
Support MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3 and SSE4.1 built-in functions and code
generation.
msse4.2
Target Mask(ISA_SSE4_2) Var(ix86_isa_flags) Save
Suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-13
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116540
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116709
Bug ID: 116709
Summary: [SH] fp values ferried through fpul
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
rpath,/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/lib32
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240913 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116684
--- Comment #4 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Since the reduction opportunity is in the unrolled scalar inner loop we'd
> have
> to know how DOT_PROD combines lanes which we do not specify but instead
> expect t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116711
Bug ID: 116711
Summary: Use simple_dce_from_worklist inside the vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: enhanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
65 matches
Mail list logo
