https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...hmmm https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html reads:
6.18 Arrays of Length Zero
Declaring zero-length arrays is allowed in GNU C as an extension. A zero-length
array can be useful as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tsamismanolis at gmail dot com
Se
/gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241020 (experimental) (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
-fno-ipa-cp works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> That is invalid C code, of course (an out of bounds access).
What about the other test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59148 ?
That'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
For the original testcase, it got fixed on trunk by r15-79-ge8ae56a7dc46e3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117244
Bug ID: 117244
Summary: [14/15 Regression] missed vectorization of (unsigned
int)(-(bool_var))
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-21
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117244
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For my reduced testcase:
from vect dump with details
>/app/example.cpp:3:23: note: _4 has no range info
Huh?
# RANGE [irange] unsigned int [0, 0][+INF, +INF]
_4 = -t_9;
It has a range of just 0/~0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117244
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
vect_get_range_info/vect_determine_precisions_from_range definitely needs to be
improved here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117244
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> vect_get_range_info/vect_determine_precisions_from_range definitely needs to
> be improved here.
It does not support sign extended types into unsigned types at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Amazing bug. Note that it depends on high-order bits of return address
overwriting o.i, so may need -no-pie -fno-pie to reproduce. Alternatively,
changing 'if (o.i)' to 'if (o.i != 1)' allows to reproduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117240
Bug ID: 117240
Summary: ICE: in copy_to_mode_reg, at explow.cc:657 with -mvaes
-mno-xsave and __builtin_ia32_vaesenc_v32qi()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 117237 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 114864 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Alternatively,
> changing 'if (o.i)' to 'if (o.i != 1)' allows to reproduce with PIE as well.
^
I meant 'if (o.i ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5259d3927c1c8e3a15b4b844adef59b48c241233
commit r15-4510-g5259d3927c1c8e3a15b4b844adef59b48c241233
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79e7e02b7cc578d03eab2b50c029f44409ef8e26
commit r14-10807-g79e7e02b7cc578d03eab2b50c029f44409ef8e26
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > I am going to implement that first and then implement the phiopt change.
>
> RTL Patch submitted:
> https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117232
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117241
Bug ID: 117241
Summary: Various pedwarns in c-decl.cc are behind
!in_system_header_at
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117154
--- Comment #7 from Carlos Galvez ---
Hi! I had another look at this an have some follow-up questions:
> it looks like GCC already implements the suggested resolution.
This does not seem to be the case? The related bug is
https://gcc.gnu.org/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117183
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sjames at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
--- Comment #11 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to denisc from comment #2)
> > Comment on attachment 59393 [details]
> > Simplified testcase
> >
> > void
> > f ()
> > {
> > volati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114960
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> I am going to implement that first and then implement the phiopt change.
RTL Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665954.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106786
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (leaving the rest of the checks in place, but not sure how safe that is).
There's a bunch of wrong-code bugs with the check in-place for that condition
already, un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117046
--- Comment #8 from Carlos Galvez ---
Sorry, I commented on the wrong bug, could some admin please delete my last
comment? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117154
--- Comment #8 from Carlos Galvez ---
Actually in the patch that would address this issue for Clang
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D53860), they mentioned 2277:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0968r0.html#2227
With emphasi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117046
--- Comment #7 from Carlos Galvez ---
Actually in the patch that would address this issue for Clang
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D53860), they mentioned 2277:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0968r0.html#2227
With emphasi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117236
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117236
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117237
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117238
Bug ID: 117238
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr92618.c -O1 (internal
compiler error: maximum number of generated reload
insns per insn achieved (90))
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112418
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
ecking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241020 (experimental) (GCC)
[527] %
[527] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117242
Bug ID: 117242
Summary: FAIL: 20_util/variant/run.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to denisc from comment #11)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> > (In reply to denisc from comment #2)
> > > Comment on attachment 59393 [details]
> > > Simplified testcase
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116780
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> > That is invalid C code, of course (an out of bounds access).
> What about the other test case
> htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Bug ID: 117243
Summary: program crash under -O3 optimization or higher
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Estimating sizes for loop 2
BB: 3, after_exit: 0
BB: 4, after_exit: 0
size: 0-0, last_iteration: 0-0
Loop size: 0
Estimated size after unrolling: 1
;; Guessed iterations of loop 2 is 200.84. New up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Trunk works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #6 from Ye Xiong ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Trunk works.
When param b is unsigned, trunk will crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #5 from Ye Xiong ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Trunk works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #7 from Ye Xiong ---
(In reply to Ye Xiong from comment #6)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> > Trunk works.
>
> When param b is unsigned, trunk will crash.
The original reduced file is:
#include
void foo(uint32_t a, u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fca35b417c236e3448bc3666820fd1ba423fe6e9
commit r13-9139-gfca35b417c236e3448bc3666820fd1ba423fe6e9
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91800a70a2af1349eefc5f3380be2b254b1db395
commit r12-10778-g91800a70a2af1349eefc5f3380be2b254b1db395
Author: liuhongt
Date:
63 matches
Mail list logo
