https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116633
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Could it be the call to __builtin_cpu_supports("darn") which happens in the
> std::random_device x("default") initialization in test01?!
>
> Could that system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116327
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ivor+gccbugzilla at posteo dot
ee
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #277 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 59153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59153&action=edit
[lra] take scratch as implicit unused output reloads
> * call_pcrel patterns: match_scratch can cause ICE f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116724
--- Comment #8 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Note that there are various places where translation happens without the
diagnostic machinery ever seeing an untranslated message. A representative
example is cp/typeck.cc:cp_build_unary_op, where message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114742
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116713
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116786
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Variant: move 'x' into the function via 'static int x' inside the main
function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116786
Bug ID: 116786
Summary: [OpenMP] ICE in install_var_field, at omp-low.cc:798
for C++ lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #280 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #279)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #275)
> > Created attachment 59152 [details]
> > Preprocessed source from from comment #273
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #273 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Ran into another one:
/usr/bin/g++-15 -DBUILDING_GTK__=1 -DBUILDING_WEBKIT=1 -DBUILDING_WITH_CMAKE=1
-DGETTEXT_PACKAGE=\"WebKitGTK-4.1\" -DHAVE_CONFIG_H=1 -DJSC_GLIB_API_ENABLED
-DPAS_BMALLOC=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #274 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 59151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59151&action=edit
Preprocessed source from from comment #271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #275 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 59152
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59152&action=edit
Preprocessed source from from comment #273
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114742
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
The minimum architecture for IEEE 128-bit support is power7, because it needs
the VSX registers to pass and return IEEE 128-bit values.
Now, in theory, IEEE 128-bit support could have required only Altiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #278 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #277)
> Created attachment 59153 [details]
> [lra] take scratch as implicit unused output reloads
>
> > * call_pcrel patterns: match_scratch can cause ICE for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #279 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #275)
> Created attachment 59152 [details]
> Preprocessed source from from comment #273
Thanks for test cases. Both .ii are compiled successfully with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116784
Bug ID: 116784
Summary: [15 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-9.c fails after
r15-3715-g77bd23a3e24755
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116162
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #6 from Rama Malladi ---
I am trying to create a reproducer for this issue. Interim, I wanted to share
some stats I got from the MySQL build to highlight this issue w GCC 12.3.0 vs.
11.5.0.
Executable Size (B)Baseline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116643
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2f4daa81b959ad27d161ae5219887a82ffe8069
commit r15-3724-gb2f4daa81b959ad27d161ae5219887a82ffe8069
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Link to the original source on github: https://github.com/LLNL/RAJAPerf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think this code has undefined code in it.
double sm0[max_DQ*max_DQ*max_DQ];
double (*u)[max_D1D][max_D1D] = (double (*)[max_D1D][max_D1D]) sm0;
That seems questionable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #2)
> Created attachment 59155 [details]
> creduce reduced file
This just compiles down to an empty loop on the trunk and in GCC 14.
It is definitely not correctly reduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
that part comes from:
https://github.com/LLNL/RAJAPerf/blob/262dcbb405b00ebc3e3184685743e9d1199a45b6/src/apps/CONVECTION3DPA.hpp#L235
I really think that is undefined and you can't pointer casting like tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116162
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2746e4347076ea48f4aeb28e13e6337ff7799ad
commit r15-3721-ga2746e4347076ea48f4aeb28e13e6337ff7799ad
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #276 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
It will take some time to sort out the known issues and there may be unknown
problems. Further testing with gcc-15 sounds like a good idea.
Here is a list of known issues and their status.
* call_pcrel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
Bug ID: 116785
Summary: RAJAPerf REDUCE_SUM regresses with commit
f0a02467bbc35a478eb82f5a8a7e8870827b51fc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59155
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59155&action=edit
creduce reduced file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59154
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59154&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
There's a bunch of uninit vars.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, I think when you involve RTL analysis you have to make sure regs
mentioned in the MEM are not modified inbetween the MEMs as RTL alias analysis
looks
at the apparent difference between x1-184 and x1 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #281 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #280)
> (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #279)
> > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #275)
> > > Created attachment 59152 [de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-20
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #282 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #281)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #280)
> > (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #279)
> > > (In reply to John Paul Adria
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116784
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd83474b2fee54697f27719a4631a21d68cb4ab6
commit r15-3727-gfd83474b2fee54697f27719a4631a21d68cb4ab6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116785
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note I think this code has undefined code in it.
>
>
>
> double sm0[max_DQ*max_DQ*max_DQ];
> double (*u)[max_D1D][max_D1D] = (double (*)[max_D1D][max_D1D]) s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116582
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Here is a variant of benchmark that needs masking
#include
#define M 1024*1024
T a[M], b[M];
int indices[M];
char c[M];
__attribute__ ((noipa))
void
test ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024* 16; i++)
if (c[i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101100
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116582
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, because multiple -mtune-ctrl options do not add!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xiaohuba2021 at 163 dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #21 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> It is not that easy. __STDC_NO_THREADS__ is a predefined macro, so it would
> mean (at least on targets without stdc-predef.h, with that header one would
> ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116781
Bug ID: 116781
Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: in
cselib_invalidate_regno, at cselib.cc:2545
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116781
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ra
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115347
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So this maybe needs "add_inner_distances" as we have add_outer_distances? We
still get only ( 0 0 ) as zero distance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #14)
> > This particular bug is resolved when building with an LRA-enabled gcc-15.
> >
> > See: htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-testcase
--- Comment #4 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954
--- Comment #5 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Hi guys,
I am working on a patch which removes mlra option, making the LRA default. I'll
try to push it somewhere next week.
Cheers,
Claudiu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> As explained above, this is not something that can be fixed in GCC.
I'm wondering why this bug was marked as FIXED, then. This is misleading.
> The macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I think I understand what add_outer_distances does. Note for other
PRs we have a similar issue with respect to inner loops.
For
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
a[0] = a[0] + i;
the WAR dependen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #15 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #13)
> > Apparently `__STDC_NO_THREADS__` is still not being defined?
>
> Because you're on macOS.
>
> This was fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yup. What I meant is, if the port still sees some use in their -mlra, there is
no pressure from us to have them remove it, we'll just make it not do anything
anymore :-) Maybe they still see some prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106606
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de915fbe3cb1ce7be35dce7d6bc8d04dc7125e61
commit r15-3711-gde915fbe3cb1ce7be35dce7d6bc8d04dc7125e61
Author: Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As explained above, this is not something that can be fixed in GCC. The macro
depends on whether or not your C library provides which GCC doesn't
know.
It's a problem with your C library, which is unlike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #22 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #21)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> > It is not that easy. __STDC_NO_THREADS__ is a predefined macro, so it would
> > mean (at least on targets w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #16)
> It does. However, I'm currently having unreleated problems with CMake which
> means I cannot build the whole project at the moment. I need to debug tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116748
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116766
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 59144
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59144&action=edit
hack
This works for the special case of >> 1; something more general and nicer
written could work. CHREC_LE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88176
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG also accepts this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116776
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Malcomson ---
N.b. from experimentation it seems that gcc 11 didn't move any part of the
condition outside of the loop, and since gcc 12 part of the condition has been
moved outside the loop.
I don't think this hoist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...and without -mlra the code is correct, so likely caused by LRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
--- Comment #11 from Raffaello Bertini ---
> MyFunc __attribute__((const)) * g_f = my_func;
> instead. Just with the attribute syntax you get an extra warning:
> warning: ‘const’ attribute on function returning ‘void’ [-Wattributes]
That's f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116777
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This particular bug is resolved when building with an LRA-enabled gcc-15.
See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:361903ad1affd508bafdb9b771d6a6ffc98a2100
commit r15-3707-g361903ad1affd508bafdb9b771d6a6ffc98a2100
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
Bug ID: 116778
Summary: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra (bitfld-lra.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 85002, which changed state.
Bug 85002 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression][Coarray] ICE in fold_ternary_loc,
at fold-const.c:11360
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 59147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59147&action=edit
gcc15-pr116738.patch
I think I've managed to make it working. Here it is.
Rest in incremental changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116573, which changed state.
Bug 116573 Summary: [15 Regression] Recent SLP work appears to generate
significantly worse code on RISC-V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116578
Bug 116578 depends on bug 116573, which changed state.
Bug 116573 Summary: [15 Regression] Recent SLP work appears to generate
significantly worse code on RISC-V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113932
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm not sure it makes sense to have this bug report depend on arch-specific
bugs such as 116778 and 116779.
This meta-bug should depend only on the LRA tracker bugs for each architecture
which i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e3a4a01785e2d5135528a07bb8116af9c55ddf8
commit r15-3712-g5e3a4a01785e2d5135528a07bb8116af9c55ddf8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> > As explained above, this is not something that can be fixed in GCC.
>
> I'm wondering why this bug was ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101100
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106606
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
Bug ID: 116780
Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: output_operand:
address operand requires constraint for X, Y, or Z
register
Product: gcc
Version: 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101686
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 101686, which changed state.
Bug 101686 Summary: export ; or export {} should not be accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101686
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116782
Bug ID: 116782
Summary: x86 backend cannot control vectorization of gather and
masked gather (and scatter) separately
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114229
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at johnmaddock dot co.uk
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, we clearly do that already for CALL_EXPRs to constexpr functions during
cp_fold. So guess it is just TARGET_EXPRs or what exactly this testcase needs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #36 from Namniav ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #35)
> It's "subtle" only in a way showing that we simplify ia == ib ? ia : ib
> to ib and that we simplify (int *)(uintptr_t)(&b + 1) to (&b + 1).
But it's in the branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116713
pietro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pietro.gcc at sociotechnical
dot x
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
