https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117347
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9684e70952ac159ce0b838533ce4e9c98474e1a8
commit r15-6292-g9684e70952ac159ce0b838533ce4e9c98474e1a8
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Deleted dead store: # .MEM_5 = VDEF <.MEM_3(D)>
> That started in GCC 12.
That is weird. I would expect CFG verification run between passes to
catch this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117347
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Each psABI defines the rules, and those can be quite different.
Right now, the target hook is prepared to decide on the modes/alignment used
for small _BitInts, whether the padding bits are unspecified or si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, would say big-endian SSO imply just the limbs are byteswapped, or the
> limb order is swapped, or both, same limb size and other parameters,
> something different?
Byteswapping the limbs without swap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114987
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114987
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or of course for -ffast-math find out the whole loop is kind of pointless and
replace the whole loop with x = x + 65536.f * y;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118081
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, ifcombine sees
_3 = iftmp.0_5 ^ 1;
if (iftmp.0_5 != 1)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870912]:
_4 = (unsigned char) _3;
if (_4 != 8)
goto ; [50.00%]
els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118081
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase:
int a, b;
int
foo (int f)
{
return f ? f || 0 : f;
}
void
bar ()
{
b = a ? a : 1;
int i = foo (1 ^ b);
signed char h = i - 8;
if (h)
return;
__builtin_abort ();
}
int
ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118083
Bug ID: 118083
Summary: __possibly_const_range misses input_range constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118062
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This is a latent issue btw. (not that compare handling would try to use a
smaller vector type...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118058
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'd be happy to document that libstdc++ is completely incompatible with
EBCDIC-JP-kana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how it can work with all the _BitInts though, the _BitInt ABI
depends on various things, which precisions are handled as normal scalar
integral types or their bitfields, which are handled as arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118079
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118056
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118082
Bug ID: 118082
Summary: Types from other packages are not visible inside
aggregate and reduction expressions inside generic
bodies
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117682
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
The issue is in the way we construct an interleaved VLA const pattern. For
efficiency we try to use a larger element width, here 16 bits, to initialize
two values in one. I believe this doesn't go along well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
--- Comment #5 from Weibo He ---
Compiled locally using MSVC with /fsanitize=address
D:\main\build>cl /std:c++20 /fsanitize=address /Zi D:\main\src\main.cpp
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.42.34435 for x64
Copyright (C) Micro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b6ed0c74139faed62b7d60804521aed67e40b2b
commit r14-11098-g3b6ed0c74139faed62b7d60804521aed67e40b2b
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b720ef00339d44050ebdaa9ac69b0c49588c501
commit r13-9258-g9b720ef00339d44050ebdaa9ac69b0c49588c501
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But the rest still applies, we'd need to define what the other endianity
> _BitInt ABI is for each target supporting _BitInt. And given that different
> architectures can have different _BitInt layout ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Component|tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106256
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114087
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d17b09c07a1da0e3950718aabc2cbdb90cae402b
commit r15-6307-gd17b09c07a1da0e3950718aabc2cbdb90cae402b
Author: Oliver Kozul
Date: Tue Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
--- Comment #10 from GUAL Jean ---
Thank you very much Paul. we will wait for the next version of Mingw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118080
Bug ID: 118080
Summary: OPTIONAL, VALUE mishandled: type(c_ptr) – argument
missing, ICE with derived type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
trunk/configure --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 20241217 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Gruber ---
Created attachment 59888
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59888&action=edit
Minimal test case, non-tail call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Gruber ---
For completeness, I also checked for when the call to the struct-accepting
function is not a tail call. This is just the same test case as before, but the
return value of extern_func is bitwise negated to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118062
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 59887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59887&action=edit
patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118058
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, I think this is a documentation issue at least.
Would introducing a "NaN" literal as result of L'e' and then eliding all
the compares as "WTF" (true or false?) work?
Or maybe we need sth like
#if __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118078
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do we need
- && same_type_p (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type),
- current_class_type))
+ && currently_open_class (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116108
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88bfee560681d8248b89f130ada249e35ee2e344
commit r15-6293-g88bfee560681d8248b89f130ada249e35ee2e344
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder if we ever get into tree sharing here and thus prove things multiple
times (and a 'visited'/'proofed' hash-set would help). Maybe caching proofs
in general might pay off (if we do lots of those).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OTOH I would expect _BitInt(32) to behave the same as int?
Yes, SSO was primarily implemented for bit-fields so IMO it would be strange to
forbid it with _BitInt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I don't see how it can work with all the _BitInts though, the _BitInt ABI
> depends on various things, which precisions are handled as normal scalar
> integral types or their bitfields, which are handled a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The libgcc problem actually doesn't exist, we could force all loads and stores
from SSO marked _BitInts and their bitfields into native endianity temporaries
if one would need to pass those to libgcc.
But th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117725
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
there's a workaround for 32bit Windows in
ec68dc1ca4d967b599f1202855917d5ec9cae52f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118078
Bug ID: 118078
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] GCC crashes on incorrect code
with -std=c++20 since r10-4719
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118079
Bug ID: 118079
Summary: std::deque has too many overloads called _M_insert_aux
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117835
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou ---
Submitted a solution for this to the lists:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671800.html
This also fixes bug 117872.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118081
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118081
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
It works with -fdisable-tree-ifcombine. Bisecting now to confirm but ccing axo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|wrong code at -O{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118017
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE:|[15 Regression] ICE:
|max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118057
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I would expect this to be always slower when vectorized unless the core is
> seriously bottle-necked on the frontend. The loads/stores need to be
> decomposed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117872
--- Comment #1 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Our patch (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671800.html) for
PR117835 should also fix this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103370
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aurelien at aurel32 dot net,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118090
Bug ID: 118090
Summary: unsignedp argument get_compare_parts is unused by
callers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improveme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115008
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Salvadore ---
I have (finally) started to look into this.
I can reproduce the issue on a FreeBSD 15 machine, but the errors are slightly
different. I have added a -v flag to get more information.
$ ~/GCC/local/usr/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118094
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118057
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118096
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #7)
> Created attachment 59903 [details]
> Complete patch with testcase included
>
> The new diff is a complete implementation with an included testcase.
Forgot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|recent bug with -O2, but|[15 regression] recent bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095
--- Comment #3 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #1)
> I think you may also need to adapt get_attr_nonstring_decl
How do I walk "up" a tree to see if it is part of a multidimensional array? I
don't understand what is happening
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095
--- Comment #4 from Kees Cook ---
I've added Martin to CC. :) Martin, you wrote this code originally; do you have
a moment to look at how this might best be solved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118099
Bug ID: 118099
Summary: basic_filebuf::overflow is left inconsistent on I/O
error.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118098
Bug ID: 118098
Summary: Missed Optimization of memcpy into Unconditional
Branch
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118096
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Reduced but still a bit gross:
```
void fancy_abort(char *, int, const char *) __attribute__((__noreturn__));
unsigned m_num;
struct vl_ptr;
struct va_heap {
typedef vl_ptr default_layout;
};
template
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code:
void printf(...);
int crc32_tab[256];
int crc32_context = 4294967295, g_27, g_64, g_90 = 3, func_2___trans_tmp_4,
main_i, main_j;
int *g_26 = &g_27;
char g_76 = 232;
void crc32_byte(ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59827|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118075
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
Ack and reproduced.
Take a rough look it should be the strided store for memory alias because
disable the sch can fix it.
I will take care of it.
atch.
On x86_64-*-freebsd, I have
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes71796
# of unexpected failures24
# of expected failures 274
# of unsupported tests 87
/usr/home/kargl/gcc/obj/gcc/gfortran version 15.0.0 20241217
(experimental) (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I get a clean sweep on x86_64_linux_gnu. I will try some jerry-code to see if I
can break it. If anyone else has comments, chime in. I think you submit to
the list Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117970
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88aa69f8126db9a2d5f93b5c6c54cc01d21d1c6e
commit r15-6315-g88aa69f8126db9a2d5f93b5c6c54cc01d21d1c6e
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Tue D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117970
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118098
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118098
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118098
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 99% sure there is a dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118098
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well the reduced testcase is undefined:
void func_2(int *) {
long __trans_tmp_5;
int *l_1710 = &g_90;
func_2___trans_tmp_4 = 7 - (__trans_tmp_5 >= g_90) - 33;
__trans_tmp_5 is not set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
... ditto the original. So maybe fixed already?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> Reduced C code:
>
Both locally and on godbolt, I see the same output for -O0 and -O3 for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117915
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
