https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96087
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3f51ea894947e495baffc67407647a3b25acdd5
commit r15-7150-gb3f51ea894947e495baffc67407647a3b25acdd5
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
--- Comment #3 from Jan Papesch ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you provide the source you are compiling. Preprocessed would be best.
> You might need to compress it if it is too large.
I'm sorry, I thought I attached it w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
RTL if-conversion is it, -fno-if-conversion fixes it.
CE1 does
IF-THEN-ELSE-JOIN block found, pass 1, test 2, then 3, else 4, join 5
scanning new insn with uid = 33.
scanning new insn with uid = 34.
scann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
--- Comment #2 from Jan Papesch ---
Created attachment 60248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60248&action=edit
Zipped preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118460
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
Besides fixing the ICE, the patch I proposed in c#5 changes the codegen for
armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c, which is compiled with
-marm -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.2-a+fp16
from:
test_select:
vcvtb.f32.f16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > The missed sinking is now fixed for GCC 15, VRP is still confused by what
> > IVOPTs does so without -fno-ivo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #6 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118527
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, dizhao at os dot amperecomputing.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118527
>
> --- Comment #4 from Di Zhao ---
> The problem is found in 548.exchange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117726
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f30edd17e62e9474f90785a5915959cd6d8c3f62
commit r15-7151-gf30edd17e62e9474f90785a5915959cd6d8c3f62
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117827
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=114877
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d19b0682f18f9f5217aee8002e3d04f8ded04ae8
commit r15-7153-gd19b0682f18f9f5217aee8002e3d04f8ded04ae8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118605
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118605
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27a05f8d11798889ecfb610db9bde781c3d218f7
commit r15-7158-g27a05f8d11798889ecfb610db9bde781c3d218f7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Bug ID: 118627
Summary: gcc/omp-general.cc:4197: Possible read of
uninitialised data ?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
Bug ID: 118628
Summary: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc:10642: Possible read of
uninitialised data ?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>
> Sam James changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116855
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
char string2[4095] __attribute__((aligned(1))) = { 2, };
char string[4097] = { 1, };
char * find(int n, char c)
{
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
if (string[i] == c)
return &string[i]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118590
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b02c061bb84c0a2dbf3987e9ff77243d089cbd7a
commit r15-7155-gb02c061bb84c0a2dbf3987e9ff77243d089cbd7a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118604
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd14b08e2caba952c0d8ff756a84e15d83aebeff
commit r15-7154-gdd14b08e2caba952c0d8ff756a84e15d83aebeff
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118606
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> What is confusing about that?
It's a matter of style. Clang considers that some style boundary has been
stepped over in the original case.
> Is that any d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, will test
2025-01-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/118628
* tree-vect-stmts.cc (vectorizable_store, vectorizable_load):
Initialize offvar to NULL_TREE.
--- gcc/tree-vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118567
--- Comment #1 from Jeevitha ---
The following vectorization testcases are failing,
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vectorize-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
of access forced using versioning" 1
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vectorize-2.c s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118629
Bug ID: 118629
Summary: ice in cp_parser_expression_statement, at
cp/parser.cc:13584
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113590
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Move update to the latch:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
index edd7d4d8763..8b282019840 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
@@ -10808,7 +10808,9 @@ ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Let me apply r15-6661 and r15-2810 on top of r15-5746 to see if we get a
> failure.
That worked. Tomorrow I will see what I can do about the comparison failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118527
--- Comment #4 from Di Zhao ---
The problem is found in 548.exchange2 of SPEC2017. As the profile counts are
not adjusted after PRE, bbro produced sub-optimized order of basic blocks. In
my test results on x86 (i0-10700) and aarch64 (Graviton),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Bug ID: 118626
Summary: C++20 std::variant causes a segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just for the record here is the comparison failure:
```
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/pinskia/src/upstream/gcc/objdir'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/analyzer/region-model.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6dd185d16dec8ca9351a754f0ece153f89d85c
commit r15-7166-g8f6dd185d16dec8ca9351a754f0ece153f89d85c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71945
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-23
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
Bug ID: 118634
Summary: [15 Regression] missed optimization leading to
maybe-uninitiallized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118619
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118630
Bug ID: 118630
Summary: [modules] ICE in sort_cluster when streaming
decltype(lambda) return type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
Bug ID: 118631
Summary: Public class member as const reference to protected
member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
Bug ID: 118635
Summary: P2510R3 "Formatting pointers" is not available in
C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/72cd15b20a887bed9b0b1f4196be99fe052247b4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
and yes I tested the trunk to see it works with -std=c++20 now unlike GCC
14.2.0 rejects it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #13 from Surya Kumari Jangala ---
Created attachment 60251
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60251&action=edit
r15-2810 plus fix for xstormy16-elf issue
Hello Andrew,
Just wanted to let you know that I made a sma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118629
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60252&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118620
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
--- Comment #2 from Phosit ---
When unrolling is forbidden by `#pragma GCC unroll 0` there is no warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that the issue is solved with r15-7165-g3cef53a4d4ff44 .
Can you please check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118629
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80813
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d55c0161562f96d2230cd132b494a5d06352a23
commit r15-7163-g2d55c0161562f96d2230cd132b494a5d06352a23
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118012
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #16)
> AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd.
The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no
means a proper fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When doing x ** n in unsigned binary arithmetic, and x is an unsigned with k
bits, and we do arithmetic modulo 2^k, then
x ** n = x ** min (n, k) (mod 2^k)
so we can immediately saturate the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> When doing x ** n in unsigned binary arithmetic, and x is an unsigned with k
> bits, and we do arithmetic modulo 2^k, then
>
> x ** n = x ** min (n, k)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Bug ID: 118632
Summary: 0 vs nullptr mixup in template
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118403
--- Comment #16 from Stephen Hemminger ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15)
> (In reply to Stephen Hemminger from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> > > (In reply to Stephen Hemminger from comment #12)
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #4 from Jörg Brüggmann ---
Aha. Got it. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #4)
> AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd.
The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no
means a proper fix,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118613
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cef53a4d4ff44a5b61284bb0e6977f7ba7b3aab
commit r15-7165-g3cef53a4d4ff44a5b61284bb0e6977f7ba7b3aab
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60254&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Note this reduced testcase is invalid in this case. I didn't try to reduce it
to a valid case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
Right now, I am doing unsigned**unsigned. This is already a
bit larger than I originally thought. After this is committed,
we can still discuss how to extend it, I think.
There is actually an interesting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118633
Bug ID: 118633
Summary: Early optimizations/transformations vs. heterogeneous
offloading compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely you forgot a copy constructor. A default copy constructor will
point the new msets to the old msets_ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118012
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
commit r15-7164-g0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
commit r15-7164-g0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The copy constructor is needed because of:
```
StringSet operator + ( const StringSet& stringSetA, const StringSet& stringSetB
) {
StringSet resultStringSet{ stringSetA };
resultStringSet.include(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111494
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 60250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60250&action=edit
patch
OK, so it at least got re-broken when refactoring reduction vectorization to
rely on vectorizable_* for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118562
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dbcf794f0fe89443288143405718d72e7963805
commit r15-7162-g3dbcf794f0fe89443288143405718d72e7963805
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118633
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IMO we can't have both - "early" optimized offload code and optimization that's
suited for the offload target. Instead we should somehow work towards
"offloading" (aka outlining) relevant parts before earl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118562
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>so maybe it's universal enough
I don't think Solaris's linker accepts it. Nor does AIX ld. Nor HPUX's (yes
these targets are all supported still).
Apple's linkers might all but I am not 100% sure there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
> > r12-7751-g919fbffef07555
>
> that might have just exposed a latent issue
Should be, the guilty commit just extent a splitter to handle reversed
condition, didn't see anything abnormal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |gcov-profile
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 60256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60256&action=edit
Proposed final patch
This patch submitted for approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
Interesting the test_example in a separate function other than main will have
the frm restore insn, but there will be no such frm in main function.
62 │ test_exampe:
63 │ frrma2
64 │ fsrmi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #4 from Li Pan ---
gcc-14 has the correct behavior and mostly some middle-end change I guess.
└─(11:39:07 on master⚑ ✭)──> riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc-14 --version
riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc-14 (Ubuntu 14.2.0-4ubuntu2~24.04) 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> I wonder if this should be closed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117188
--- Comment #4 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I think this can be closed.
yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Severity|no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60259&action=edit
Non-reduced testcase for compare debug issue
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ !./x
./xgcc -B. -fno-exceptions -fschedule
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compare-debug-failure
--- Comment #16 f
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
