[Bug libstdc++/117085] New: chrono formatting: %c does not honor locale after expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117085 Bug ID: 117085 Summary: chrono formatting: %c does not honor locale after expansion Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/117043] missed vectorization opportunity: data[i] = data[i - a[i]] + 1; (a[i]=0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117043 --- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- When the size of the array is 20: https://godbolt.org/z/EKfrWYTGb int data[20]; void f() { int a[20]; for(int i = 0; i < 20; i++){ a[i] = 0; } for(int i =

[Bug ada/116945] Valgrind reports uninitialized memory use in sem_ch12.adb (sem_ch12__instance_context__save_and_reset)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116945 Paul Floyd changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pjfloyd at wanadoo dot fr --- Comment #11

[Bug target/80881] Implement Windows native TLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881 --- Comment #48 from Uroš Bizjak --- Comment on attachment 59315 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59315 Candidate patch >+static rtx >+ix86_tls_index (void) >+{ >+ if (!ix86_tls_index_symbol) >+ix86_tls_index_symbol = ge

[Bug target/117069] [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[15 Regression] |gcc.target

[Bug c++/113798] [C++26] P2662R3 - Pack indexing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113798 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/117070] Procedure target error with parameter structure constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117070 --- Comment #1 from Ivan Pribec --- This is supposed to work already with the F2008 standard: > nagfor -f2008 dispatch_test.f90 NAG Fortran Compiler Release 7.2(Shin-Urayasu) Build 7203 Evaluation trial version of NAG Fortran Compiler Release

[Bug target/117079] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c since r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659911.html

[Bug target/117079] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c since r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cmuellner at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/117080] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2b.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2c.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |tree-optimization Blocks|

[Bug target/117081] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug target/117081] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > I mentioned it in PR115673 which may help with bisection range. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html

[Bug c/117083] New: ICE: in get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:939

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083 Bug ID: 117083 Summary: ICE: in get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:939 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/117086] New: [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected vector_type, have boolean_type in TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086 Bug ID: 117086 Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected vector_type, have boolean_type in TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug tree-optimization/117086] [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected vector_type, have boolean_type in TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 59317 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59317&action=edit preprocessed source

[Bug tree-optimization/117086] [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected vector_type, have boolean_type in TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Keywords|

[Bug ada/116945] Valgrind reports uninitialized memory use in sem_ch12.adb (sem_ch12__instance_context__save_and_reset)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116945 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- > In C++ (and C) reading uninitialized data is Undefined Behaviour. Which > means you are in the Twilight Zone with nasal demons and all that. The > compiler would be perfectly justified in optimizing away

[Bug tree-optimization/117086] [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected vector_type, have boolean_type in TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- vect__ifc__9.3372_199 = VEC_COND_EXPR ; _327 = .REDUC_IOR (vect__ifc__9.3372_199); if (_327 == 0) -> _513 = VEC_COND_EXPR ; if (_513 != 0) proper best simplification would be to _513 = mask__34

[Bug target/117073] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_double-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117073 Bug ID: 117073 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_double-1.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/116463] [15 Regression] fast-math-complex-mls-{double,float}.c fail after r15-3087-gb07f8a301158e5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/117071] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-vector-complex-float.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117071 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/117072] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_float-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 117073 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/117073] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_double-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117073 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/117074] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074 Bug ID: 117074 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/117072] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_float-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662523.html d34cda720988674bcf8a24267c9e1ec61335d6de is the first bad commit commit d34cda720988674bcf8a24267c9e1ec61335d6de Author: Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/117072] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_{float,double,_Float16}-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||53947 Keywords|

[Bug target/117068] bpf: add support for preserve_static_offset attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Target|

[Bug target/117068] bpf: add support for preserve_static_offset attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I can't think of a good way of solving this really. Having a specific pass after register allocation might work but I am not 100% sure if it will work always. The other way of solving this is having special

[Bug fortran/117070] New: Procedure target error with parameter structure constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117070 Bug ID: 117070 Summary: Procedure target error with parameter structure constructor Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/117078] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug target/115028] [15 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115028 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #8 f

[Bug target/117082] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||testsuite-fail Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/117081] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/117082] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/117069] [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/117074] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html

[Bug target/117074] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Keywords|

[Bug target/117074] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which mentions this failure explicitly.

[Bug target/117075] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/part-vect-complexhf.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117075 Bug ID: 117075 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/part-vect-complexhf.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug target/117075] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/part-vect-complexhf.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117075 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/116463] [15 Regression] fast-math-complex-mls-{double,float}.c fail after r15-3087-gb07f8a301158e5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 117075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #393 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #392) > Created attachment 59309 [details] > a patch to fix pr55212-c384.C on devel/sh-lra Thanks so much for looking into it. Yes, insn matching order is important,

[Bug target/117076] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101716.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076 Bug ID: 117076 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101716.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/117072] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_{float,double,_Float16}-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/117072] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_{float,double,_Float16}-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which mentions this failure explicitly.

[Bug fortran/117077] New: ICE due to allocatable component in hidden type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117077 Bug ID: 117077 Summary: ICE due to allocatable component in hidden type Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/117076] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101716.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #394 from Oleg Endo --- The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665033.html for PR 116550 might be relevant here, too.

[Bug target/117078] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/117074] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/115673] [15 regression] gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #9 f

[Bug target/117081] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/117078] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/117080] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2b.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2c.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/117079] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/117064] target hook HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK is too limiting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117064 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/117082] [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/70989] [SH] Further improve utilization of zero-displacement conditional branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70989 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/117083] ICE: in get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:939

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery --- Comment #3 from Ric

[Bug tree-optimization/117062] [15 regression] x86-64: ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- The attached testcase runs into PR117050 indeed. I'll do a partial revert instead of the fix as the fix takes some time due to dependence on a larger issue.

[Bug target/80881] Implement Windows native TLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881 --- Comment #50 from Eric Botcazou --- > Please note that RIP-relative addresses are one byte shorter than absolute > addresses and are interchangeable on x86_64 Linux. If this is also true on > Windows (UNSPEC_PCREL was introduced for PE linkers

[Bug tree-optimization/117062] [15 regression] x86-64: ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, manuel.lauss at googlemail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062 > > --- Comment #5 from Manuel Lauss --- > Another one: > > g++ -c -O2 -mar

[Bug c++/108953] inefficient codegen for trivial equality (defaulted operator==)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108953 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- LLVM has a full pass that does this: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33987

[Bug target/117078] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078 Bug ID: 117078 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug target/117079] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079 Bug ID: 117079 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/117080] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2b.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2c.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080 Bug ID: 117080 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2b.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2c.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #396 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #392) > Created attachment 59309 [details] > a patch to fix pr55212-c384.C on devel/sh-lra I can confirm that this patch fixes the bootstrap issue with

[Bug libstdc++/93059] char and char8_t does not talk with each other with memcpy. std::copy std::copy_n, std::fill, std::fill_n, std::uninitialized_copy std::uninitialized_copy_n, std::fill, std::unin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/117060] internal compiler error: in as_a, at is-a.h:255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117060 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ce2229d54d575d788b016f941aafd0464ea77f7 commit r15-4237-g7ce2229d54d575d788b016f941aafd0464ea77f7 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/117060] internal compiler error: in as_a, at is-a.h:255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117060 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #21 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #20) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > > I don't think it can be completely avoided. But I don't understan

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #392 from Kazumoto Kojima --- Created attachment 59309 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59309&action=edit a patch to fix pr55212-c384.C on devel/sh-lra

[Bug target/115789] gcc miscompile itself with CFLAGS -O3 -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115789 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/116242] [meta-bug] Tracker for zvl issues in RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242 Bug 116242 depends on bug 115789, which changed state. Bug 115789 Summary: gcc miscompile itself with CFLAGS -O3 -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115789 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/80881] Implement Windows native TLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #59298|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/114571] -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant does not complain about NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571 --- Comment #7 from Alejandro Colomar --- See also:

[Bug middle-end/116926] [15 Regression] Recent changes in dot-product causing ICE on c6x port

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116926 Victor Do Nascimento changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/114571] -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant does not complain about NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571 Alejandro Colomar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alx at kernel dot org --- Comment #

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #15) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #14) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #13) > > > Hmm I do think 2 is better. It seems we are just "reinventing" the GOT >

[Bug c++/91187] Is it possible to make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant learn about extern "C"?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187 Alejandro Colomar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alx at kernel dot org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/80881] Implement Windows native TLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881 --- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 59305 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59305&action=edit WI

[Bug target/80881] Implement Windows native TLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881 --- Comment #38 from Eric Botcazou --- It's the legitimate_pic_operand_p hunk that I dropped earlier...

[Bug fortran/117060] New: internal compiler error: in as_a, at is-a.h:255

vision-214303 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 15.0.0 20241010 (experimental) (git-revision-214303)

[Bug tree-optimization/117060] internal compiler error: in as_a, at is-a.h:255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117060 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org L

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #390 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #389) > (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #304) > > (define_insn "block_lump_real" > > [(set (mem:BLK (match_operand:SI 2 "sfunc_arg0_reg" "=r,r")) > >

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao --- Hmm interesting. For x86 x86_64_elf_section_type_flags also does not give SECTION_RELRO but the test case seems building fine...

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #391 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #388) > (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #387) > > > Currently, I'm using the sh-lra-take3 branch with the patches 59216, 59219 > > > and 59286 which

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #20 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > I don't think it can be completely avoided. But I don't understand why the > > public code does not set the SECTION_R

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #23 from Xi Ruoyao --- Anyway I'd like to know more info about PR47610 and PR52999. In the old days people didn't write rationales in ChangeLog so it's hard to understand the rationales of the fixes. And is there a test case for wh

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/116980] Fixed includes don’t work with XCode 16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116980 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/117061] New: Error on use of parameter in lambda outside function body

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117061 Bug ID: 117061 Summary: Error on use of parameter in lambda outside function body Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug tree-optimization/112418] factor_out_conditional_operation could be done for more phis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112418 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- So looking into what LLVM does here (GVN-sink), The order inside the bb matter. Example: ``` int g(int); int f(int a, int b, int c, int l, int j) { int d, e; if (c) { e = b

[Bug target/117081] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081 Bug ID: 117081 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/117082] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082 Bug ID: 117082 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug jit/111396] Segfault when using -flto with libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396 --- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Antoni from comment #5) > I believe so, but there might always be cases that we need to fix. > Why do you ask? Did you get any issue? I was just wondering if I could close it.

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #25 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #22) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > > I don't think it can be completely avoided. But I don't understand why

[Bug target/117068] bpf: add support for preserve_static_offset attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- in the case of GCC, the attribute is lost early on for many accesses. Especially a target specific one. In RTL mem has attributes but nothing like preserve_static_offset . CE (ifcvt) could turn in theory tur

[Bug target/116887] Section type conflict on loongarch with .data.rel.ro section attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887 --- Comment #26 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #23) > Anyway I'd like to know more info about PR47610 and PR52999. In the old > days people didn't write rationales in ChangeLog so it's hard to understand > the rationales

[Bug target/117072] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_float-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072 Bug ID: 117072 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_float-1.c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

  1   2   >