https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is mine. The loop first checks that basic block is empty (consits only of
debug statements, predicts, clobbers and nops) and then it asserts that there
is only one edge out, which ought to be the case. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117896
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117162
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3b5de944ad6d1f6a10f819b816c2ba234ecd8c0
commit r15-5895-gf3b5de944ad6d1f6a10f819b816c2ba234ecd8c0
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117615
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Bug ID: 117897
Summary: Bug in gfortran compiled windows run time with the
latest release (14.2.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117898
Bug ID: 117898
Summary: ICE: tree check: accessed elt 1 of 'tree_vec' with 0
elts in make_pack_index, at cp/pt.cc:4290
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117861
--- Comment #4 from Saada Mehdi <00120260a at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> No, that's a C-like reasoning, idiomatic loops in Ada never overflow their
> index and, therefore, people should never fiddle with over
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96340
--- Comment #2 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> was this also fixed by r14-6416-gf5fc001a84a7db ?
No, it's still unfixed due to:
/* We currently do not support generating simdclones where vector argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, seems loop-doloop.cc doesn't look at REG_DEAD notes, but at live out.
/* Ensure that the new sequence doesn't clobber a register that
is live at the end of the block. */
{
bitmap modi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117088
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> void digits_2.isra (integer(kind=4) ISRA.6607)
> {
> integer(kind=4) ISRA.6607_927(D) = ISRA.6607;
> ...
> # RANGE [irange] integer(kind=4) [-2147483647, 8][10, +INF]
> _494 = ISRA.6607_927(D) + 1;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117162
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115328
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8acf6816cf360d5db0ebfaf995415961f455274
commit r14-11050-ge8acf6816cf360d5db0ebfaf995415961f455274
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117899
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117726
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4114b7fb1cb4cb90b9fafc22213d7d9579bc19e0
commit r15-5896-g4114b7fb1cb4cb90b9fafc22213d7d9579bc19e0
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117088
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> > void digits_2.isra (integer(kind=4) ISRA.6607)
> > {
> > integer(kind=4) ISRA.6607_927(D) = ISRA.6607;
> > ...
> > # RANGE [irange] integer(kind=4) [-2147
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117900
Bug ID: 117900
Summary: Spurious call to copy constructor when
list-initializing a const reference
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117900
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117900
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC doesn't just require an accessible copy constructor, it uses it:
struct S {
S() {}
S(const S &) { throw; }
};
using Sref = const S&;
int main()
{
S s;
(void)Sref{s};
}
terminate cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
>
> --- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luigighiron at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
Bug ID: 117895
Summary: [15 regression] ICE in operand_subword_force
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117891
Bug ID: 117891
Summary: go1: internal compiler error: in write_equal_function,
at go/gofrontend/types.cc:2334
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
--- Comment #4 from Hu Lin ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> I can't either. Hu Lin, what commit did you try at?
Sorry, I didn't update, I tried the case at
d9e02add88d45f9f6d35f0caaefe9f0c1907a510. Currently, I'm bisecting gcc to s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I can't either. Hu Lin, what commit did you try at?
igure --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 20241203 (experimental) (GCC)
[516] %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117088
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
...
> Its never been clear ot me why we still change loop branches to use !=. We
> turn
> for (int y = 0 ; y < 10; y++)
> b[y] = x;
> into
>
> if (y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Semi reduced:
```
#include
struct LayoutUnit {
constexpr LayoutUnit();
template
constexpr explicit LayoutUnit(IntegerType value);
constexpr explicit LayoutUnit(unsigned long value);
constexpr ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117894
Bug ID: 117894
Summary: Elaborated-type-specifier with class/struct
incorrectly accepts union type when using a dependent
name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117885
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Schrodinger ZHU Yifan from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > The 'GIMPLE' doesn't look like GIMPLE.
>
> The GIMPLE is the unmodified GIMPLE obtained from GCCJIT’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the unconstrained Focus(T) constructor is still a terrible idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117847
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b89341f124eadc689682d01193309225adfec23
commit r15-5887-g0b89341f124eadc689682d01193309225adfec23
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117420
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17c9c7c10a70d18dea5849d11a4fa382d3817fa1
commit r15-5888-g17c9c7c10a70d18dea5849d11a4fa382d3817fa1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29bea6921d0e2e3dd20bc78926ef0e98b1b1e4ad
commit r15-5889-g29bea6921d0e2e3dd20bc78926ef0e98b1b1e4ad
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117858
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29bea6921d0e2e3dd20bc78926ef0e98b1b1e4ad
commit r15-5889-g29bea6921d0e2e3dd20bc78926ef0e98b1b1e4ad
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
Hu Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117726
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d203f4cb968a1dc45c7fcd1bf5d7cd485ca6f510
commit r15-5892-gd203f4cb968a1dc45c7fcd1bf5d7cd485ca6f510
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #5)
> Seems that commit (d2f9159cfe7ea904e6476cabefea0c6ac9532e29) fixed this
> issue. The wrong pattern is no longer generated, although I don't understand
> why for the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4f3c3efc669afe6e270344ff73c7471fea67ce7
commit r15-5893-gd4f3c3efc669afe6e270344ff73c7471fea67ce7
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af9a3fe6a52974252516b3eea4c5ab5caae47b4b
commit r15-5894-gaf9a3fe6a52974252516b3eea4c5ab5caae47b4b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117883
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ugh. libgo + sparc + solaris 2. Hopefully I can find a way to reproduce
this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Ugh. libgo + sparc + solaris 2. Hopefully I can find a way to reproduce
> this.
Shouldn't be too hard these days: the cfarm has a Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
g:721a38add973a937b4b60f05cfa17958e892ad27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Was wondering how I hadn't noticed this but it's because we just patch out the
sed entirely because it's troublesome.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
Bug ID: 117893
Summary: gcc configure failed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114540
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4acab372d31a9fe9184ccc247780940821cda367
commit r15-5877-g4acab372d31a9fe9184ccc247780940821cda367
Author: Heiko Eißfeldt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117861
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|pragma Suppress |internal error on
|(O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117861
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117896
Bug ID: 117896
Summary: Unexpected warning when specializing a template
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117899
Bug ID: 117899
Summary: C++17 parallel execution policies with OpenMP backend
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #26 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f01f01f0ebf8f5207096cb9650354210d890fe0d
commit r14-11053-gf01f01f0ebf8f5207096cb9650354210d890fe0d
Author: Tamar Chris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina ---
> >
> > We DO already impose any order on them, but the other operand is oddodd, so
> > the overall order ends up being oddodd because any known permute overrides
> > unknown ones.
>
> So what's the des
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108236
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not quite right because the type of __init is only required to be move
constructible, not copy constructible. That's wrong in the serial
std::exclusive_scan too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108236
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/numeric_impl.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/numeric_impl.h
@@ -160,9 +160,10 @@ __brick_transform_scan(_ForwardIterator __first,
_ForwardIterator __last, _Outpu
{
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117900
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117902
Bug ID: 117902
Summary: -Wc++-compat can trigger a false-positive about tokens
not yet expanded from macro
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102689
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31250baf81446aa4fc1b729e2fc5165a36005ebc
commit r15-5897-g31250baf81446aa4fc1b729e2fc5165a36005ebc
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Tue D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117813
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yup, my bisection found the same two commits.
Do we want to backport r15-521-g6ad7ca1bb90573 then? Or a simpler change to
undo the unwanted effects of r14-5979-g99d114c15523e0? (could the bug even
still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117469
--- Comment #5 from Luke Shumaker ---
Indeed. My mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Bug ID: 117901
Summary: class_transformational_1.f90 with -O3 and
-fcheck=bounds gives ICE in make_ssa_name_fn
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
usually some missing DECL_EXPR and a SSA name leaking into TYPE/DECL_SIZE this
way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117883
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
Andrew: what would be a better way to write this function?
I do have the code in my fork to fix this specific error. I'm preparing a patch
that will also fix other issues with this code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #19 from Eugene Rozenfeld ---
I investigated what happens in the compiler.
In afdo_annotate_cfg we have these lines:
cgraph_node::get (current_function_decl)->count
= profile_count::from_gcov_type (s->head_count ()).afdo ();
ENT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84b40a1c1b2c9e3feb546838fa988d653eed0755
commit r15-5910-g84b40a1c1b2c9e3feb546838fa988d653eed0755
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108236
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd107a6343c96c4ef26096e250d43a4a4211eced
commit r15-5912-gcd107a6343c96c4ef26096e250d43a4a4211eced
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117904
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117904
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
It appears that cc1gm2 doesn't like the ZType being used as the step type
block.
If the declaration of block is changed to a CARDINAL constant the ICE
disappears.
For example:
CONST block = CARDINAL (4);
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114022
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116481
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109123
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114661
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91069
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
commit r15-5913-g846c0b397b5c1b4ff6c68d83af99aff2aa80a162
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117898
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code with |[15 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #5)
> Seems that commit (d2f9159cfe7ea904e6476cabefea0c6ac9532e29) fixed this
> issue. The wrong pattern is no longer generated, although I don't understand
> why for the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #20 from Rama Malladi ---
> I propose the patch below. Rama, can you please check if this resolves your
> perf regression?
Hi Eugene,
Thanks for this investigation and proposed fix. I can give it a try and update
in a day or two.
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
