https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It doesn't even unambiguously specify whether the mode is that of the source
> or the destination. The original idea was of course that the size
> unambiguously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117502
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116578
Bug 116578 depends on bug 117502, which changed state.
Bug 117502 Summary: Fail to SLP gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pr95199.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117502
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #20 from Wojciech Mula ---
This constants is worth checking (appears in division by 10):
```
unsigned long ccd() {
return 0xcccd;
}
```
riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ (crosstool-NG UNKNOWN) 15.0.0 2024
(experime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #28 from Sam James ---
Jeff, can you push the revert for now, given that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59585
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59585&action=edit
Change float to int
Changing float to int still causes a failure (works on the trunk) and removing
the call to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #30 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've reverted the patch and given Alexey some guidance on how to fix the
testcase from Zdenek.
Alexey, I'd recommend including Zdenek's testcase as well. Note that it uses
128bit objects, so in the test y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113868
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89f21c18af96a3b994595081939e19d8b042c963
commit r14-10922-g89f21c18af96a3b994595081939e19d8b042c963
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113868
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117328
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d1e1f947d5dade8474cb39516b60422bcc3c245
commit r14-10923-g4d1e1f947d5dade8474cb39516b60422bcc3c245
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113868
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4290b2dbef55a4785c86bdfd25d5e376a840f868
commit r13-9179-g4290b2dbef55a4785c86bdfd25d5e376a840f868
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
Bug ID: 117546
Summary: Different (and incorrect) behavior when compiling C
code with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #29 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #28)
> Jeff, can you push the revert for now, given that?
+1
My usual gcc testing has mostly been on hold for five days
awaiting version 2 of the fix or a revert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/adobe-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
Bug ID: 117547
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/*-pr93673.c without
TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
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=117546
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Different (and incorrect) |[14 regression] Different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548
Bug ID: 117548
Summary: ICE when redeclaring function with a compatible type
involving C23 structure compatibility
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #32 from Sam James ---
Thanks Jeff and Alexey. Alexey, please don't consider it a reflection on your
work at all, these things happen. It just makes sense to get the pressure off
and let fuzzers and so on progress to other testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #16 from Eugene Rozenfeld ---
Sorry for the delay, Rama. I should have time to look into this by the end of
the week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59583&action=edit
reduced.c
Reducing it more now as it's a bit too big still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59585|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117418
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2272cd2508f1854c880082f792de15e76ec09a99
commit r15-5184-g2272cd2508f1854c880082f792de15e76ec09a99
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Wed Nov 6 15:42:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117549
Bug ID: 117549
Summary: Miscompile with -O0 and -O1/2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59587&action=edit
reduced.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111733
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Soumya AR :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b2915d95d855333d4d8f66b71a75f653ee0d076
commit r15-5188-g9b2915d95d855333d4d8f66b71a75f653ee0d076
Author: Soumya AR
Date: Wed Nov 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111733
Soumya AR changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.lapshin at espressif
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117418
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e41fdca8a290c4d72b1972af8cdfd1dd60af31df
commit r12-10813-ge41fdca8a290c4d72b1972af8cdfd1dd60af31df
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117550
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117418
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4758f8d410e961b09c8be619d6d0a71d5e7e4aa5
commit r13-9183-g4758f8d410e961b09c8be619d6d0a71d5e7e4aa5
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Need a way to make inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117550
--- Comment #3 from Alexey ---
Testcase is:
```
#include
std::string my_string;
void append_my_string(const char *foo) {
my_string.append(foo);
}
```
https://godbolt.org/z/vTE1z7h46
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117539
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Gronkiewicz ---
Thank you for a quick response!
Actually, I do not agree. As explained better by this post and the one below:
https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/pure-procedure-and-intent-out-polymorphic-pointer-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117503
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59583|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-testcase
--- Comment #5 from Sam Jame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117483
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Li Xu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:445d8bb6a89eb2275c4930ec87a98d5123e5abdd
commit r15-5187-g445d8bb6a89eb2275c4930ec87a98d5123e5abdd
Author: xuli
Date: Tue Nov 12 02:31:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #33 from Sam James ---
Jeff, you seem to have applied it again in r15-5185-g10d76b7f1e5b63, was that
intentional?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117549
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Seems to have started with r6-9085-gd9363c4e3940bf but that commit makes me
even more suspicious of the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117550
--- Comment #4 from Alexey ---
Yes, it seems this task is a duplicate of bug 93008. However, my request is to
have acceptable behavior only for the -Os optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117543
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Yunbo Ni from comment #2)
> After reviewing the commit, I realized it's a duplicate of bug 117476. The
> mistake was due to using the wrong commit in the bisect process. I’ll be
> more careful with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114127
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114300
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62042
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117328
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d34069c3ffaac95ba880ba12de26972bc3fb91b8
commit r15-5160-gd34069c3ffaac95ba880ba12de26972bc3fb91b8
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Wed Oct 30 11:22:12 2024 +0100
ada: Fix spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://linaro.atlassian.ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117328
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117545
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh this is fixed on the trunk ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svetli97 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117545
--- Comment #3 from Svetlin Totev ---
Oh, sorry for not testing that first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117018
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #20 from dennis luehring ---
thanks!
works with latest gcc.godbolt gcc trunk - on par with clang behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117328
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6214b83e10d26bf116d4fca9de07a14cf4358cd
commit r13-9180-gd6214b83e10d26bf116d4fca9de07a14cf4358cd
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117503
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55725
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62042
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b861785242450c8711aae6394751a75eadc4a0a9
commit r15-5129-gb861785242450c8711aae6394751a75eadc4a0a9
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Mon Oct 21 10:55:28 2024 +0200
ada: Elide the cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112979
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112821
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113037
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117545
Bug ID: 117545
Summary: Addition of two integers incorrectly "optimized" to 16
SIMD instructions instead of a single "lea"
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
--- Comment #27 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Alexey Merzlyakov from comment #25)
> Updates on GCC regression testing:
> Locally checked the GCC make check with enable-languages=all before the
> patching vs. r15-4991-g69bd93c167fefb + fix w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||X86_64
Component|rtl-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59582
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59582&action=edit
Patch handling testcase in comment#13
This patch leads to the following translation of the main:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
-fno-ipa-modref works. I can't diff the dumps because my compilers all work
locally but it's probably the IPA fixes I backported that fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546
--- Comment #4 from Skef Iterum ---
If only I had been more resolute in my laziness ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117503
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:169897bb402c46394ca38c8b3146d9d0c7ec35f5
commit r15-5179-g169897bb402c46394ca38c8b3146d9d0c7ec35f5
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Since const_0_to_255_operand returns false on (const_int -1
[0x]),
we need to get (const_int 255 [0xff]) from
co
nstant 255>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina ---
I can provide a GCC 14 fix during Stage 3 while I fix the GCC 15 one if that's
easier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105054
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116868
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Andrew Carlotti
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d5f550231b57b0fa9d8ec53cc6354961ead358b
commit r14-10920-g6d5f550231b57b0fa9d8ec53cc6354961ead358b
Author: Andrew Carlo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116868
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> So I guess we are missing somewhere __builtin_assert that the length of
> vector copied is allways smaller then half of address space...
Or the compiler could c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117421
--- Comment #4 from Wojciech Mula ---
Although, there's no word-wise set for equality, thus I think this sequence
would be better.
```
lbu a0, 1(a1)
lbu a2, 0(a1)
lbu a3, 2(a1)
lb a1, 3(a1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117530
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117544
Bug ID: 117544
Summary: Lack of vsetvli after function call for whole register
move
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
>
> --- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> > So I guess we are missing somewhere __builtin_assert that th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112821
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3408792e6016a53cbc10653948e07132d0f13361
commit r15-5153-g3408792e6016a53cbc10653948e07132d0f13361
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113868
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aebc8bfdbe0d2e62e94943356d99174b525f1cb
commit r15-5148-g1aebc8bfdbe0d2e62e94943356d99174b525f1cb
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113037
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0362d7aa8fcdb63505a6b37a36fc7cc5845ba80c
commit r15-5154-g0362d7aa8fcdb63505a6b37a36fc7cc5845ba80c
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112979
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd525f07535cb1a144e39cbb5c9b33e845d19e87
commit r15-5155-gbd525f07535cb1a144e39cbb5c9b33e845d19e87
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114127
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbbfad022c2f5bc6b481b41bd32faa278e343474
commit r15-5157-gfbbfad022c2f5bc6b481b41bd32faa278e343474
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Carlotti :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f72f8c34952fe27795fc750e80cb78b97b51fa97
commit r15-5175-gf72f8c34952fe27795fc750e80cb78b97b51fa97
Author: Andrew Carlotti
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96945
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2264b68796aa6f1a609987cf7edb9183bf070e7e
commit r15-5176-g2264b68796aa6f1a609987cf7edb9183bf070e7e
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117421
--- Comment #3 from Wojciech Mula ---
It's worth noting, that Clang first synthesizes a 32-bit word from individual
bytes, and then use a single comparison.
```
ext_is_gzip(std::basic_string_view>):
li a2, 4
bne a0, a2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96945
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
with Jakub's builtion_operator_new patch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667834.html
on the original testcase we now optimize away allocation and produce
int vat1 (struct vector &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117541
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
MSVC creates a hole in the middle of the vector, destroying the elements that
were there previously, then fills the hole using uninitialized_copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117544
--- Comment #1 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #0)
> I'm not sure if it's reasonable to ask the Linux kernel maintainers to fix
> this by keeping VILL consistent across system calls.
That doesn't fix the problem: we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117520
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17ff72651dbba6790ce4c492aa2df78f1dbdaf3e
commit r14-10919-g17ff72651dbba6790ce4c492aa2df78f1dbdaf3e
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55725
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Poulhi?s :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb4a081156175cf7ac7a818c6a669d3f63ea0ad8
commit r15-5151-gbb4a081156175cf7ac7a818c6a669d3f63ea0ad8
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117504
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
