https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116973
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
While recovering the absymal code-generation of gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-st.c is
likely not of uttermost priority the missing opportunity is for the case
of single element interleaving that can be vectorized by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117537
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59577&action=edit
build.log.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117537
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
>
> I assume this started with the libgcc change a little while ago from the arm
> folks to enable -Werror for arm.
If that's right, it's not respecting --disable-werror
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117191
--- Comment #9 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59576&action=edit
pro_and_epilogue pass dump file (pre dse2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117538
Bug ID: 117538
Summary: Tracebacks don’t include the load address of PIE
executables
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Returning to this PR, I found that passing NULL() to character pointer dummies
exhibits a wrong translation of the function call, despite the declaration
appearing fine:
program p
implicit none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
John Scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jscott at posteo dot net
--- Comment #16 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490
--- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Some tests for pointers to struct w and w/o tag and also with one incomplete
struct.
https://godbolt.org/z/ePcoTTeMq
#if 1
#define tag
#endif
int f2(void *x, void *y)
{
typedef struct tag { i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117020
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Yes, it's about the exec-charset / wide-exec-charset.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117539
Bug ID: 117539
Summary: Pure procedure and intent(out) polymorphic pointer
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117540
Bug ID: 117540
Summary: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_cgraph_node failed at
-Os.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #23 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 117531 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117531
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/oneapi-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117534
Bug ID: 117534
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault at
check_explicit_specialization(tree_node*, tree_node*,
int, int, tree_node*)
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Jonathan already self-assigned it which indicates he's planning to work on it
soon, FWIW (that doesn't happen for all libstdc++ bugs automatically).
But if you're interested in trying a patch, he might be able
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69585
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #8)
> Marek Polacek, could we please get this backported to GCC 12 too?
Sorry, this doesn't look like a candidate for backporting to GCC 12 to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117535
Bug ID: 117535
Summary: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus
with recursive lambda
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69585
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
FWIW, Jason said it seemed reasonable on IRC, but ofc if you're not comfortable
with it, that's fine (just saying it wasn't out of nowhere).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111861
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Interesting, I guess 'auto x = *iter;' should never be done in generic code
> then?
Yap, even 'range_value_t x = *iter;'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] |[15 Regression]
|canv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 117510, which changed state.
Bug 117510 Summary: Inner loop with static trip count breaks vectorization of
outer loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da64698159fe69b68f5264b54cebcb67c501b3cf
commit r15-5082-gda64698159fe69b68f5264b54cebcb67c501b3cf
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117531
Bug ID: 117531
Summary: Miscompile with -O2 and -O0/1/3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
ll get the same code as in Comment #18. Tried "-O2
-ftree-vectorize" and -O3.
gcc version 15.0.0 2024 (experimental) [master r15-5078-g42a2df0b798] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
>
> --- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116388
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42a2df0b7985b2a4732ba1c29726ac7aabd5eeae
commit r15-5078-g42a2df0b7985b2a4732ba1c29726ac7aabd5eeae
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Mon N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116388
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 regression] |[13/14 regression]
|Fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
--- Comment #4 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Fixed for GCC 15.
Thanks! If I have cases which, when m is a compile time constant, vectorize for
m small but not m large is that likely to be a separate i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e22d80d4f0f8d33f538c1a4bad07b2c819a6d55c
commit r15-5083-ge22d80d4f0f8d33f538c1a4bad07b2c819a6d55c
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Mon N
e add one test for this target x86.
>
> Unfortunately, I still get the same code as in Comment #18. Tried "-O2
> -ftree-vectorize" and -O3.
>
> gcc version 15.0.0 2024 (experimental) [master r15-5078-g42a2df0b798]
> (GCC)
Oh, I see. Seems I called the scalar sat_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11)
> Tentatively (absent a way to test this) so long as we continue to link
> libgcc, and libgcc provides the heap support, I'd say that's probably OK -
> we do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Freddie Witherden from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Fixed for GCC 15.
>
> Thanks! If I have cases which, when m is a compile time constant, vectorize
> for m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
Bug ID: 117532
Summary: Miscompile with -Os and -O0/1/2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miscompile with -Os and |[15 Regression] Miscompile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117352
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.merzlyakov at samsung
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Modified testcase for testsuite:
int a, c = -1;
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (int x)
{
if (x)
__builtin_abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
a = ~c;
foo ((unsigned char) a);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Given the # of dupes, I recommend that fuzzers revert that commit locally for
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117532
--- Comment #6 from Yunbo Ni ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> Given the # of dupes, I recommend that fuzzers revert that commit locally
> for now.
Thanks for your advice. I'll revert it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #22 from Alexander Monakov ---
*** Bug 117532 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117529
--- Comment #5 from Kang-Che Sung ---
Sorry again. My mind wasn't cleaned up when I wrote the comment. It's (x == 0
|| y == 0) and the logic is not equivalent to ((x & y) == 0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2024, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
> >
> > Iain Sandoe changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112600
--- Comment #21 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #20)
> (In reply to Li Pan from comment #19)
> > interesting, I will take a look for f2 after some more sat_* supported.
>
> RISC-V backend works well for all of above pattern but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117409
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117529
--- Comment #3 from Kang-Che Sung ---
The func4 example that Andrew Pinski provided makes me realize that this func5
should optimize to the same code:
```c
bool func5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y)
{
if ((x | y) == 0) return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117529
--- Comment #4 from Kang-Che Sung ---
Oops. Correction. I mean this:
```c
bool func5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y)
{
/* (x == 0 || y == 0) */
if ((x & y) == 0) return 0;
unsigned long long res;
return __builtin_umu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117506
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
>
> Iain Sandoe changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117508
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455
> >
> > --- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> `-O3 -fno-trapping-math` is enough to reproduce the ICE.
I should mention without `-fno-trapping-math`, the ifcvt thinks (correctly)
that the pattern cause a tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117512
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: in |[14/15 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117512
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117533
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117520
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:128f6a6d7af9cf187d59c1dbd9e59f5b782e17c8
commit r15-5107-g128f6a6d7af9cf187d59c1dbd9e59f5b782e17c8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117463
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f32e7339871beec0e4d49698f7e34d77ee882088
commit r15-5110-gf32e7339871beec0e4d49698f7e34d77ee882088
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117463
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> The way most other targets represent this is just (fix:SI (reg)) without the
> inner most `fix:DF/SF`
Thanks Andrew. Will test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117536
Bug ID: 117536
Summary: -Wshadow generates an incorrect warning with some
usages of immediately invoked lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.2.0
Keywords|needs-reducti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59578&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117537
Bug ID: 117537
Summary: [15 regression] Failed cross build for
aarch64_be-unknown-linux-gnu
(libgcc/config/libbid/bid_conf.h:847:25: error:
missing braces around i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> convert_optab tab = unsignedp ? ufix_optab : sfix_optab;
> libfunc = convert_optab_libfunc (tab, GET_MODE (to), GET_MODE (from));
> gcc_ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #15 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> Thanks Eugene. Were you able to review the repro and propose a fix?
Hi Eugene, checking again. It would be great if you can look into it.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117533
Bug ID: 117533
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal
terminated program cc1plus with incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276
--- Comment #4 from Oliver Schönrock ---
Is there anything I can do to help move this forward?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117502
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b27a7dd050262a7d64d87863201e4ebbde88386
commit r15-5117-g0b27a7dd050262a7d64d87863201e4ebbde88386
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117484
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61cd1c43b82dc9d4c3edf122d22887fdce340223
commit r15-5118-g61cd1c43b82dc9d4c3edf122d22887fdce340223
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #20 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #25 from Alexey Merzlyakov
---
Updates on GCC regression testing:
Locally checked the GCC make check with enable-languages=all before the
patching vs. r15-4991-g69bd93c167fefb + fix we are discussing in this ticket.
Testing was perf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117541
Bug ID: 117541
Summary: vector::insert_range should not use ranges::copy
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117280
--- Comment #2 from Jiang An ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2957.html
Let's suspend this. If it's determined that evaluating a reference member is an
access, GCC's current behavior should be correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
My plan is to revert the problematic change tomorrow unless Alexey has a patch
ready. There's no sense in having folks keep stumbling over this while Alexey
is cobbling together a fix.
It's not a reflec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
Bug ID: 117542
Summary: Missed loop vectorization for truncate from float to
__bf16.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
96 matches
Mail list logo
