https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60457|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118834
Bug ID: 118834
Summary: __is_same diagnostic can be more specific
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #10 from jcldc13 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Note, it is wrong even on x86_64. For varargs functions, %rax needs to be
> number of floating point arguments in the ABI, but if called through K&R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117504
--- Comment #3 from Simon Martin ---
Interestingly enough, it's the trailing type that's causing issues; things work
perfectly fine without it.
That's what I'm digging into.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is still invalid even if you are lucky and it doesn't crash.
And it easily can crash at least with older gcc versions.
E.g. with
#include
int
foo (int a, ...)
{
va_list ap;
va_start (ap, a);
if (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118792
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8c5013b6b7820d77edc45d04e634d49b20c05ce
commit r15-7474-ge8c5013b6b7820d77edc45d04e634d49b20c05ce
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nicholas Williams from comment #1)
> Created attachment 60438 [details]
> gcc -v output from buggy RHEL/GCC14
The reason this doesn't work is because gcc-toolset-14 links to
libstdc++_nonsha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14 Regression]
|str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
Luca Bacci changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luca.bacci at outlook dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118836
Bug ID: 118836
Summary: sso warning dependend on -fno-builtin
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Always on x86_64, though. Compilers can't change the ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #37)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 55424 [details]
> > An updated patch
>
> Is this patch similar to the one in PR109093#c17 ? As argued in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118807
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef83fae50d8f085fe8440bfa595875a2e2329871
commit r15-7470-gef83fae50d8f085fe8440bfa595875a2e2329871
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118807
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60458|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 118807, which changed state.
Bug 118807 Summary: [modules] ICE in c_tree_chain_next during GGC with explicit
instantiations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118807
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #13 from jcldc13 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> (In reply to jcldc13 from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > You can run by yourself my test case on x86 computer, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 60464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60464&action=edit
trimmed down testcase with just the important function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
--- Comment #12 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to fengfei.xi from comment #11)
> could you please explain under what specific circumstances this change might
> lead to slower performance?
> Also, is there a more complete fix or any plans f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118837
Bug ID: 118837
Summary: Interpretation of DW_FORM_data*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118837
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
Also there was an old thread about this:
https://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss/2010-July/000862.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
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=84918
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
For reference, trunk with
-fdiagnostics-set-output=text:experimental-nesting=yes :
https://godbolt.org/z/8nv36zxqf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
--- Comment #18 from ganime ---
i found my issue, when i profile first with -O2 and than prof-use with -Ofast,
i receive compile error.
when i compile in profiling run with -Ofast and compile again with prof-use
-Ofast compile running well.
sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118836
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118834
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-11
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118340
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118834
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have not looked fully but
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667976.html might to a
patch to solve this. I also suspect it is too late to get into GCC 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118827
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #37 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> Created attachment 55424 [details]
> An updated patch
Is this patch similar to the one in PR109093#c17 ? As argued in PR109093#c35,
it looks that the current detectio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #38 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #29)
> $ gcc-14 p.c -o p -O2 -march=znver1 -fno-stack-protector
> -fno-stack-clash-protection && ./p
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Adding -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118834
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=118817
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a1d2ea57722c248777e1130de076e28c443ff8b
commit r15-7472-g0a1d2ea57722c248777e1130de076e28c443ff8b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #35)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 54666 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Change ix86_find_max_used_stack_alignment to find alignments of all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118761
--- Comment #6 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Can stdarg functions (say void foo (int, ...); or for C23 void bar (...);
> too) be represented in C interop?
No, these are not interoperable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60462&action=edit
An untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> So
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-live.cc.jj 2025-01-02 11:23:05.915664859 +0100
> +++ gcc/tree-ssa-live.cc 2025-02-11 14:44:33.940178150 +0100
> @@ -369,9 +369,17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108866
--- Comment #10 from Peter Damianov ---
Currently binutils does not install windres into the "tooldir" where gcc
typically seems to be searching, which is likely why the behavior Pali was
observing was happening.
in binutils/Makefile.in simply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Untested patch:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
index 3beeb514b81..99cd64ada1f 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.cc
+++ b/gcc/combine.cc
@@ -14559,7 +14559,8 @@ distribute_notes (rtx notes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84796
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
I suppose one way to make this work is to eagerly expand pack expansions in
member template parameter lists when instantiating a class template.
Consequently we'd now reject the below testcase due to conflic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a1c9d03309ff1e507f7ea347fe8cc12bf669296
commit r13-9371-g0a1c9d03309ff1e507f7ea347fe8cc12bf669296
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f47dc6e9aa82e1c00ed030cb9469cd84df8691d
commit r14-11301-g5f47dc6e9aa82e1c00ed030cb9469cd84df8691d
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd52571d713749f1a4cf0f58ca4922dbc42b5752
commit r12-10950-gbd52571d713749f1a4cf0f58ca4922dbc42b5752
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112961
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118827
--- Comment #4 from Huaqi ---
But why interrupt attributed function behavior are different from normal
function?
see my previous comment https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118827#c2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118818
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's probably also some time since this got any tuning (for recent uarchs).
IIRC originally latency wasn't much worse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118832
Bug ID: 118832
Summary: RISC-V: internal compiler error: could not split insn,
with V+Zbb enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> This looks like a GC bug.
> On the id_string.55 DECL_HAS_VALUE_EXPR_P bit is set and DECL_VALUE_EXPR is
> set to
> COMPONENT_REF during streaming in.
> But th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> I think the VAR_DECL should be reachable from elsewhere (BLOCK_VARS ideally,
> I'd like to get rid of local_decls). IIRC I wondered at some point
> whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111628
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7008552b493edaca6af041a18ff436c37f259bc
commit r15-7466-gb7008552b493edaca6af041a18ff436c37f259bc
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Tue F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118830
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116948
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109440
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
This is old code though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> So the issue is not that we remove id_string.55 var from the hash but
> that somehow marking the id_string.55 using *id_string.55 faults then?
> Why? Is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118828
--- Comment #1 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0)
> Test case:
>
> /* { dg-do preprocess } */
> /* { dg-options "-mno-lasx" } */
>
> #ifdef __loongarch_asx
> #error LASX shouldn't be available here
> #endif
>
> #pragma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118822
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=118830
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
with WO_TRY we optimize this by jump threading in threadfull1, with the
try/catch we likely run into some limits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
return memrefs_conflict_p (xsize, x0, ysize, y0,
c - cx1 + cy1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
Bug ID: 118831
Summary: C function with variables arguments called from
fortran on ARM architecture
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7317fc0b03380a83ad03a5fc4fabef5f38c44c9d
commit r15-7469-g7317fc0b03380a83ad03a5fc4fabef5f38c44c9d
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Feb 11 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #2 from jcldc13 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I don't think you can do this in F77, you need to properly use iso_c99
> bindings.
> You likely get the "unprototyped" call ABI which differs from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118833
Bug ID: 118833
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE with structured binding as
condition of while/for loop since r15-7426
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to jcldc13 from comment #2)
>
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > I don't think you can do this in F77, you need to properly use iso_c99
> > bindings.
> > You likely get the "unpro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97991
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% sure but it looked like this was fixed in GCC 14. The number of
pretmp is greatly reduced even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118827
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
AN
UBSAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1:print_stacktrace=1
working $
and
/home/dcb40b/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb40b/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb40b/gcc/results.20250211/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/dcb40b/gcc/results.20250211/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #4 from jcldc13 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to jcldc13 from comment #2)
> >
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > I don't think you can do this in F77, you need to pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #35 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> Created attachment 54666 [details]
> A patch
>
> Change ix86_find_max_used_stack_alignment to find alignments of all stack
> slot accesses.
HJ, it looks that the cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
--- Comment #16 from Luca Bacci ---
Hi FeRD,
Following your suggestion I have opened a dedicated ticket:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118838
Thanks,
Luca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://maskray.me/blog/2021-11-07-init-ctors-init-array covers it in as clear
a way as I've seen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118838
Bug ID: 118838
Summary: _Pragma diagnostic ignored inside macro
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because the constructors for globals in the libstdc++.so shared library are run
before the ones in your program. This happens when the shared library is loaded
into the process.
When you link to libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118839
Bug ID: 118839
Summary: [OpenMP] Missing diagnostic when the variant is the
same as the base name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118835
Bug ID: 118835
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in s390_valid_shift_count
since r10-1731-ge2839e47894f0b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can stdarg functions (say void foo (int, ...); or for C23 void bar (...); too)
be represented in C interop?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390*-*-*
Host|s390*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79704
Bug 79704 depends on bug 51017, which changed state.
Bug 51017 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] GCC performance regression (vs.
4.4/4.5), PRE/LIM increase register pressure too much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to jcldc13 from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Note, it is wrong even on x86_64. For varargs functions, %rax needs to be
> > number of floating point arguments in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118792
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So
--- gcc/tree-ssa-live.cc.jj 2025-01-02 11:23:05.915664859 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-live.cc2025-02-11 14:44:33.940178150 +0100
@@ -369,9 +369,17 @@ mark_all_vars_used_1 (tree *tp, int *wal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
--- Comment #15 from FeRD ---
(In reply to Luca Bacci from comment #14)
> Hello, I have the same issue with the C frontend:
>
> test-gcc.c:
> --
> #define PRAGMA_FENV_ACCESS_ON \
> _Pragma ("GCC diagnostic push") \
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118746
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4abac2ffdb071ca9337e4f31fa79cd38df1ac7c3
commit r15-7476-g4abac2ffdb071ca9337e4f31fa79cd38df1ac7c3
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
