https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36831
mmokrejs at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116575
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b2fb7ddc7a713c057d033a48c9482d5383ba54c
commit r15-4662-g7b2fb7ddc7a713c057d033a48c9482d5383ba54c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84868
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5211c13cf2ca3576ae287b204640516de20ecff
commit r12-10785-gb5211c13cf2ca3576ae287b204640516de20ecff
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43485
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I am not sure if there is not much to be done.
> The front-end is recusive here:
So you found the bug already. Now fix it :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #16)
> Created attachment 58764 [details]
> Fix for this PR
>
> Lot's of checking needed now: (i) To understand why this fix is necessary
> here; and (ii) To see what els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The change fixed `wolfssl-5.7.2` ICE for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116551
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de8d6829371821775183fbf5633cc1e654d96b78
commit r15-4652-gde8d6829371821775183fbf5633cc1e654d96b78
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43485
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8af9169fcf792531ca7bbaac80d15123c7970f06
commit r15-4645-g8af9169fcf792531ca7bbaac80d15123c7970f06
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Whatever is done, it needs to be (worst case conservatively) correct, so if it
can't or decides not to process some edge which does or might result into true
result, assume the worst (VARYING etc.).
Of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
Bug ID: 117293
Summary: SFINAE in class partial specialization "leaks" its
side-effects
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117259
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression] warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] ICE: |[13/14 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
See PR c++/49756. It uses 64MB, not unlimited.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10)
> void
> stack_limit_increase (unsigned long pref ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> {
> #if defined(HAVE_SETRLIMIT) && defined(HAVE_GETRLIMIT) \
> && defined(RLIMIT_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
That paragraph is there. As a Constraint, it needs a pedwarn or hard error (for
both the sign and overflow cases). The claim in the paper that it's already a
hard error in GCC is incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see why it wouldn't, it uses the same code for handling % in the string
as is used for extended asm inside of functions. Nothing before that actually
parses/interprets the format string, the restric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
I misparsed "is miscompiled on the trunk and 14/13 branches with -O2
--param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0". I now see that the reason you hit it
was a different default on rs6000, rather than something else ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Bisecting has been pretty painful so I gave up for now. I ended up hitting
other comparison failures for a lot of commits in the range.
I also wonder if maybe I misconfigured something but it did build fine wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #32 from Kamil Dudka ---
Thanks for the update! I confirm that the man page is readable now and that
the use of -fdiagnostics-set-output= eliminated the duplicated output without
the ugly workaround. I have also tried sarif:version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
Bug ID: 117294
Summary: Concept swallow diagnostics when they're defined in
terms of type traits
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-22 20:00:11 |2024-10-25
--- Comment #13 from Georg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, ok, got it. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Bisecting has been pretty painful so I gave up for now. I ended up hitting
> other comparison failures for a lot of commits in the range.
Have you tried
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
That's in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170#c0 -- it's just
that I ended up hitting other failures which appear to be different which made
bisecting painful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cb1da72cac166bd3b005c0430557b68b9761da5
commit r15-4677-g6cb1da72cac166bd3b005c0430557b68b9761da5
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Fri O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68e7ced1c7a9b205d3de5937d36ceab94fb44144
commit r15-4676-g68e7ced1c7a9b205d3de5937d36ceab94fb44144
Author: Sam James
Date: Sun Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117277
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can also confirm that this fixes:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/store_lane_spill_1.c scan-assembler-not
tstrtz[0-9]
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98905
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87253
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is how gdb fixed it:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=86091eae202f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117234
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note here is testcase that would show a missed lim on the gimple level due to
trapping:
```
#include
#define vect4f __attribute__((vector_size(4*sizeof(float
svfloat32_t f(float a, int t, bool *b)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Bug ID: 117300
Summary: guality tests always fail on Fedora 41
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
Bug ID: 117301
Summary: Many AVX10 tests fail
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
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=117300
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59439&action=edit
Maybe something like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I think (not 100% sure) we have to clobber it unconditionally if gdb was built
with a configure option for some default debuginfod server, but I have not
checked on fedora if they just export that var in their d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is how gdb fixed it:
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=86091eae202f
wait that is for a remote testing.
This was for local testin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.0, 15.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 100236, which changed state.
Bug 100236 Summary: arm: UB in arm_compute_save_core_reg_mask (shift exponent
4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100236
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100236
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117299
Bug ID: 117299
Summary: tbaa.c dg-final scan needs checking
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117299
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106077
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #8)
> Created attachment 51045 [details]
> patch to fix pr83466
>
> patch to fix this issue for SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSDESC and SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSIE.
Please send the patch to the gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
You're 100% right -- no idea where I got that from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
Bug ID: 117302
Summary: merge + present generates invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Since new AVX10.2 instructions are generated,
check_effective_target_avx10_2_512
doesn't cover them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117253
--- Comment #7 from Davide Italiano ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> So probably IVOPTs related. With -fno-ivopts code generated by GCC 13 and
> trunk are about the same size.
For the second example (see code above) -- `-fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87253
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117299
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90
commit r15-4692-g40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90
Author: Sam James
Date: Sat Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I agree it's difficult to solve. GCC tries to up the stack limit to unlimited,
why isn't this working for you? Maybe we should remember the failure to do so
and report that (and make the segfault handler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116953
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddba8434cbf0ddf07a48a8b68942b4c78b5567c7
commit r14-10835-gddba8434cbf0ddf07a48a8b68942b4c78b5567c7
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115507
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116578
Bug 116578 depends on bug 116575, which changed state.
Bug 116575 Summary: [15 Regression] blender in SPEC2017 fails to use
mask_load_lanes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116575
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116551
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11b51284290b2e369fcab8d74735bf3cc017894f
commit r14-10837-g11b51284290b2e369fcab8d74735bf3cc017894f
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117209
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85221c95e3458de903ca9eeef76345e8326d3ec2
commit r14-10838-g85221c95e3458de903ca9eeef76345e8326d3ec2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7965062f9e9ba634247b1dab22e1d83f446337ab
commit r14-10840-g7965062f9e9ba634247b1dab22e1d83f446337ab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I agree it's difficult to solve. GCC tries to up the stack limit to
> unlimited, why isn't this working for you? Maybe we should remember the
> failure to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE: |[13 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117259
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8bd4f104ff9cd4d47b301698ae29010924a0fe9d
commit r14-10839-g8bd4f104ff9cd4d47b301698ae29010924a0fe9d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
It seems that until now, we didn't see an empty block feeding a PHI that
mattered:
_3 = x_2(D) + 4294967292;
if (_3 <= 1)
goto ; [41.00%]
else
goto ; [59.00%]
goto ; [100.00%]
_6 = x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116551
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18af118e17bd0787638967725047f7241e43b2b2
commit r13-9149-g18af118e17bd0787638967725047f7241e43b2b2
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116551
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbad5c84458324c82f848d35fffa02cb5a412270
commit r13-9148-gfbad5c84458324c82f848d35fffa02cb5a412270
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116551
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #8)
> See PR c++/49756. It uses 64MB, not unlimited.
[bergner@ltcden2-lp1 ICE]$ ulimit -s 8192
[bergner@ltcden2-lp1 ICE]$ /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk/bin/gcc -S test.c
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Not sure if should be P1 given it's (more) triggerable on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I agree it's difficult to solve. GCC tries to up the stack limit to
> unlimited, why isn't this working for you? Maybe we should remember the
> failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you think it is more triggerable on trunk rather than on branches?
The testcase ICEs on the 13/14 branches too, and the only reason I saw it on
the trunk is that I was considering using [[assume (EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #412 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #410)
> Created attachment 59432 [details]
> a trial patch for c#404
>
> It's difficult to see what is going on, because the test case is too huge.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111249
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > Bisecting from 11 (good) -> 12 (bad) gave r12-4871-g502ffb1f389011 as the
> > breaking commit.
> >
> > Bisecting from 13 (ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #31 from Sam James ---
Michael, would it be possible to land those patches? Thank you! We have been
shipping them for quite some time now downstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note flang produces the same code while ifort/ifx produces the if/then.
But as mentioned in those links the code is undefined because merge does not
need to be evulate the expressions conditionally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> That's in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170#c0 -- it's
> just that I ended up hitting other failures which appear to be different
> whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi ---
Thanks Eugene. Were you able to review the repro and propose a fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> We should add the testcase as well (I can do it).
Posted:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/2a3d484399534a1449ac3a29d6089ed62b839a5a.1729885673.git@gentoo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:908b306909f10d7592a0ef611cc77b5720f07fa7
commit r15-4687-g908b306909f10d7592a0ef611cc77b5720f07fa7
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
asm-generic/ is a kernel thing, not relevant at all. bits/resource.h is used
by , the header you should use.
That is used by "system.h" under a
#ifdef H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #45 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04e0fbbc34e1015f081676c6fc7c674cf0eeb1d5
commit r15-4683-g04e0fbbc34e1015f081676c6fc7c674cf0eeb1d5
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
