https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117350
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117357
Bug ID: 117357
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2882 (unrecognizable
insn: UNSPEC_RSQRT) with -mfpmath=387 and
__builtin_ia32_rsqrtf()
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-30
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
asm() modifying the stack pointer are invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117361
Bug ID: 117361
Summary: [15 Regression] GCC build fails with
"gcc/opts-diagnostic.cc:599: test_output_arg_parsing:
FAIL: ASSERT_STREQ (pt.get_diagnostic_text ()"
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117362
Christian Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cs at aibiot dot de
--- Comment #1
= negate_v1_0 ? ~negate_v1_0 : negate_v1_0;
long i = 0;
for (; i < negate___trans_tmp_1; i++)
negate_v_1[i] = 0;
}
does this:
foundBugs $ ../results.20241028.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc -c -w -O2 bug1061.c
foundBugs $ ../results.20241030.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc -c -w -O2 bug1061.c
bitsobj.c: In function ‘ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
If sp isn't changed then it should not appear as output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abcfe1e51c18b14d324586f1d9d50e8238497865
commit r15-4766-gabcfe1e51c18b14d324586f1d9d50e8238497865
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> asm() modifying the stack pointer are invalid.
Yeah, but the construct in Comment 0 is what kernel people use to prevent asm
from being scheduled before frame is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117362
Bug ID: 117362
Summary: target() attribute applied to wrong function, or wrong
check order in conjunction with interrupt() attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
This should be warned similar to "listing the stack pointer register %qs in a
clobber list is deprecated".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
With the patch in PR117359 applied and testcase patched with:
--cut here--
--- pr117312.c 2024-10-30 10:50:04.921338850 +0100
+++ pr117312-new.c 2024-10-30 10:49:49.441488965 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
+reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpa at zytor dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> This should be warned similar to "listing the stack pointer register %qs in
> a clobber list is deprecated".
The compiler already warns when "rsp" is added to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #70 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I apologize for vanishing suddenly and not giving progress reports, I am
> currently busy with some JDK work. The only thing left missing is the
> configure check. I will return to finishing TLS support on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #15)
> Odd. When I added a read flag intrinsic to my test case, it prevented the
> red zone from being used. If it clobbers the redzone, then that's obviously
> a very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice during GIMPLE pass: |[15 regression] ICE during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||63426
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #8)
> If sp isn't changed then it should not appear as output.
SP isn't changed, but memory locations that depend on SP may be changed. By
listing RSP in the output we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
let's move the Sparc bug to a new one (PR117364) since it's not directly
related to this fix at all (just triggered by the test case).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
Bug ID: 117364
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression][coroutines] Use of
triggers an ICE on spare
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #10)
> If you change memory, then that memory needs to be in the output/clobber
> list.
Adding redzone memory to output is not effective, please see PR117312 for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you change memory, then that memory needs to be in the output/clobber list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117366
Bug ID: 117366
Summary: arm thumb1 epilogue size optimizer violates -ffixed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> > This does not seem morally different from NVRO.
>
> Yes, that's perfectly fine.
>
> > At present, I do not have a handle on where the actual issue is - since
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"memory" clobber is IMO about possibly changing any user var in memory behind
the back of the compiler, not about changing whatever compiler internals stored
somewhere on the stack in stack slots that don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111861
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117313
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116607
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:673d6b2cbf610508d315526f4963793a343a2070
commit r15-4778-g673d6b2cbf610508d315526f4963793a343a2070
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116607
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
Bug ID: 117370
Summary: std::nothrow variants of operator new are not
optimized away when block is unused
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> Neither is clobbering a register.
Yes, as I have already reported in Comment #7.
But adding RSP to the output list will do exactly what we want, as reported i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Interestingly, Clang *does* say why the concept failed, and says that there was
an explicit constructor that wasn't a candidate. But it also prints notes about
implicit copy constructor and implicit move c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> I think ->sp_is_unchanging isn't the correct vehicle to test whether the red
> zone is usable - as you point out the red zone might be used/clobbered so the
> x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Even if we remove the constrained function template and just write an
> assertion based on the underlying built-in, there's no more information:
>
> struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
ASAN says:
==3038484==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: global-buffer-overflow on address
0x5bb17fa7e4a1 at pc 0x5bb17fa794c3 bp 0x7ffdda66b1e0 sp 0x7ffdda66b1d0
READ of size 1 at 0x5bb17fa7e4a1 thread T0
#0 0x5bb17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117371
Bug ID: 117371
Summary: [14.2 Regression] type incompatibility between
‘INTEGER’ and ‘CARDINAL’
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117371
--- Comment #1 from Ludovic Brenta ---
And it just occurred to me that, when m and k are declared
INTEGER, perhaps the call to WriteCard (k, 1) should also be
flagged as an error?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117275
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acc0b9ff9cf1bcfed63812ca223251485b6471b7
commit r14-10856-gacc0b9ff9cf1bcfed63812ca223251485b6471b7
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28032
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Aha, it needs a non-empty set of args, which can be ignored. So:
proc dg-gfortran-onepass { args } {
global DO_ONE_PASS
set DO_ONE_PASS 1
puts "\nRunning dg-gfortran-onepass\n"
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117275
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70f911bf547326a7b9ae6e116c65c22ce0cd0e65
commit r14-10855-g70f911bf547326a7b9ae6e116c65c22ce0cd0e65
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59504&action=edit
wrong code due to the wrong type being used
Attached is the gimple testcase for the wrong type being used and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Simon Martin from comment #8)
> [...]
> How do you reproduce this? Are you configuring with
> --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto?
Sorry for the delay -- I just confirmed I can reproduce it on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> While you're at it, the ULL uses in ext-dce.cc should be
> HOST_WIDE_INT_UC () or 1ULL should be HOST_WIDE_INT_1U.
It might also be a wise idea in these cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117372
Bug ID: 117372
Summary: std::list pretty printer: AttributeError: 'NoneType'
object has no attribute 'pointer'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Should be fixed everywhere, I'll leave this open for a bit until we get
confirmation that this fixes the Debian package build with GCC 14, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117350
--- Comment #15 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess to debug have to figure what's different about the decl between the non
autofdo case and autofdo.
I tried to work around it by modifying the urlifier code to avoid the anonymous
name space,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101002
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> > These die because the struct we're using to check the alignment of uses long
> > double as the "big" aligne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Sunil Dora from comment #5)
> Dear GCC Team,
>
> I am writing to request the backport of this fix (Wrange-loop-construct) to
> GCC version 13.3. Due to particular project requirements, we are u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think I can write a gimple testcase ...
```
unsigned __GIMPLE ()
test2 (int n)
{
unsigned t;
_Bool _3;
t_2 = (unsigned)n_1(D);
t_3 = t_2 - 1u;
n_5 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117373
Bug ID: 117373
Summary: [15 regression] -Wunused-parameter warning in
analyzer/infinite-loop.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I think I can write a gimple testcase ...
I messed up that. Still looking to see if I can get a gimple testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #5 from Sunil Dora ---
Dear GCC Team,
I am writing to request the backport of this fix (Wrange-loop-construct) to GCC
version 13.3. Due to particular project requirements, we are unable to upgrade
our GCC version at this time. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117158
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=116783
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:434483ac32a08d1f3608c26fe2da302f0e09d6a2
commit r14-10853-g434483ac32a08d1f3608c26fe2da302f0e09d6a2
Author: Alex Coplan
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112459
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117374
Bug ID: 117374
Summary: Strange behavior of co_yield in initializer-list
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
Bug ID: 117375
Summary: ICE with -fdiagnostics-details patch in sink pass
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with|ICE with
|-fdiagnostics-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71a0cf699b6a2dc03abec53aeafab8b70db2bb07
commit r14-10852-g71a0cf699b6a2dc03abec53aeafab8b70db2bb07
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0a932fb53ccdf5155db90632901c55446b8
commit r12-10793-gd0a932fb53ccdf5155db90632901c55446b8
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Bug ID: 117367
Summary: Miscompile with different optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117368
Bug ID: 117368
Summary: Miscompile with different optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117368
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 117368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117369
Bug ID: 117369
Summary: False positive Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds fanalyzer
warnings for sprintf to offset at -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Apologies for being slow here - which, specific, construct are you
> considering questionable?
MEM[(struct Handle *)&] = SR.40_20;
when is not addressable at the RTL level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
Neither is clobbering a register.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117365
Bug ID: 117365
Summary: Captured this lost after assignment to std::function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] ICE during |[15 regression] ICE during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117347
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Slightly reduced testcase:
program pr117347_red
implicit none
type :: point
real :: x = 42.
end type point
type(point) :: mypoint
real:: pi(1)
associate (points => mypoi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This does not seem morally different from NVRO.
Yes, that's perfectly fine.
> At present, I do not have a handle on where the actual issue is - since
> Rainer's and Eric's reports are from completely dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-30
Target|arm-pok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117354
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doesn't need -fsanitize=address, just ensuring the _BitInt(256) var is just
8-byte aligned is enough:
struct S {
unsigned char y;
_BitInt(256) x;
} s;
__attribute__((noipa)) static void
foo (const char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
I think ->sp_is_unchanging isn't the correct vehicle to test whether the red
zone is usable - as you point out the red zone might be used/clobbered so the
x86 backend would need to check for that, and a "m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104465
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
