https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] Type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116379
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b01664a6197f57615d3c62594037c575dfdd9035
commit r15-7527-gb01664a6197f57615d3c62594037c575dfdd9035
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66519
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a6758edc229abc0ed0f5ce65958082b3e8a8502
commit r15-7534-g9a6758edc229abc0ed0f5ce65958082b3e8a8502
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66519
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118880
Bug ID: 118880
Summary: bug 81268, which was supposedly fixed with gcc v8 is
still present
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110584
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118862
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Completely untested.
This regresses in unsigned_43.f90, on the test case
unsigned(kind=1) :: x, r1, r2, r3, r4
unsigned(kind=1) :: n
x = 0u_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118080
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061745.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118864
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Does the clang version work for function pointer types and
> indirect calls?
Yes but in an interesting way it seems.
The examples from their docume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118761
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c38d0a79caef1909df9f51ec8d17c5f8cfecabd
commit r14-11310-g9c38d0a79caef1909df9f51ec8d17c5f8cfecabd
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118864
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116216
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59252
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ec7193faa7a5a78dd5382aec220a49f4a76a976
commit r14-11309-g5ec7193faa7a5a78dd5382aec220a49f4a76a976
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118877
Bug ID: 118877
Summary: -Wstringop-overread in gcc/attribs.cc with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118852
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
So we're failing to vectorize
hi$slot_78 = PHI <_75(24), hi$slot_71(15)>
which we lack SLP discovery for. That's because the stmt isn't live but
only forced-live by early break and that's because we sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118877
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118875
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0)
> This restriction is, to my mind, counter-intuitive and useless. The language
> names _are_, after all, in upper case; users are likely to assume the
> upperca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Antoni from comment #9)
> Created attachment 57810 [details]
> Patch to fix the issue
Looks reasonable.
> I was unable to create a reproducer in C for the tests.
> It seems the problem was ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118852
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:589d79e6268b055422a7b6c11cd0a8a4f2531a8c
commit r15-7533-g589d79e6268b055422a7b6c11cd0a8a4f2531a8c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:720137f4ee6e80de5c22b9f9c9750f13b2132fe6
commit r15-7535-g720137f4ee6e80de5c22b9f9c9750f13b2132fe6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118881
Bug ID: 118881
Summary: sarif-replay doesn't yet handle "annotations"
(§3.28.6)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118879
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int f0(long long v)
{
unsigned long long t = v;
t += 0x80'00'00'00ull;
if (t <= 0xff'ff'ff'ff)
return v;
return 0;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118879
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117324
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118856
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e96e1bb69c7b46db18e747ee379a62681bc8c82d
commit r15-7532-ge96e1bb69c7b46db18e747ee379a62681bc8c82d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118882
Bug ID: 118882
Summary: __has_builtin is confusing with `#pragma omp target`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118869
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118885
Bug ID: 118885
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr90579.c fails with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Bug ID: 11
Summary: GCC only optimize 1 bits-manipulation function out of
many despite having the same implementations.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86707
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was fixed in GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I forgot to mention this is a good hint for Thomas regarding how to tweak the
previous fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118887
Bug ID: 118887
Summary: Missed CSE of symbolic address computation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118886
Bug ID: 118886
Summary: Invalid fusions on RISC-V
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
