https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #12 from Niklas Haas ---
Out of curiosity, is there a work-around that I could use to get current
versions of GCC to compile the right thing, but without breaking cross-platform
compatibility?
I did try replacing the assertion by "x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So first of all the range info on the shift is lost, so
vect_recog_over_widening_pattern cannot do its work. The info is lost when
PRE moves the invariant (int) amount cast out of the loop - we've dropped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118874
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I've tried
--- gcc/coroutines.cc.jj2025-02-04 09:16:42.820267205 +0100
+++ gcc/coroutines.cc 2025-03-04 11:42:28.004682770 +0100
@@ -5183,6 +5183,15 @@ cp_coroutine_transform::build_ramp_funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104130
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104684
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118892
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d883f3233c4b7e0dce52539a12df8aff43e4
commit r15-7809-gd883f3233c4b7e0dce52539a12df8aff43e4
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccf9db9a6fa4b5bc7aad5e9603e2ac71984142a0
commit r15-7805-gccf9db9a6fa4b5bc7aad5e9603e2ac71984142a0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115529
--- Comment #2 from Kang-Che Sung ---
Since I've run into this problem again. I think it's good rephrase the issue,
and provide another example code.
This optimization feature request is about comparing whether a variable is in a
specific range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119104
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> They should. It is more important not to force UB on cases where there is
> no harm (i.e. runtime memcpy (NULL, NULL, 0) and similar) than to get some
> ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
> So something like the following - which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119102
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> We're taking the non-OpenMP branch there, but the error from GCC seems to be
> incorrectly referring to OpenMP.
>
> The docs for attribute simd say:
>
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Niklas Haas from comment #12)
> Out of curiosity, is there a work-around that I could use to get current
> versions of GCC to compile the right thing, but without breaking
> cross-platform com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119104
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > The analyzer will be hopefully improved for GCC 16, there was just a minimal
> > support added so that the an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119100
--- Comment #3 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> Paul -- have you run your patch on any design? And if so what did you run
> and what was the performance delta before/after?
Thanks for your input, Jeff!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118608
--- Comment #3 from Mateusz Marciniec ---
Thanks for the patch, I applied it onto gcc 14.2.0 and tested it on our mips64
hardware, it fixed reported regression.
Additionally I ran our testsuite with patched gcc on x86_64, arm and aarch64
target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Shouldn't we optimize this in match.pd when global range says it is ok or
> > during vrp/evrp using local rang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119104
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> The analyzer will be hopefully improved for GCC 16, there was just a minimal
> support added so that the analyzer tests didn't regress.
> The normal -Wnonnul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118998
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60652&action=edit
Proposed fix (work in progress)
Here is a proposed patch which fixes the rotate return type by converting both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118531
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
--- Comment #4 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #3)
> Ah Edwin, would you mind CC'ing on such regressions? Thanks.
my bad. will do that for future regressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119100
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Should.. ..the version for this be 16? That's when we expect to do an upstream
push.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71684
Christian Prochaska changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian.prochaska@genode-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119060
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119114
Bug ID: 119114
Summary: [14/15 regression] RISC-V: miscompile at -O3 since
r14-4077-g86451305d8b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109431
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
Bug ID: 119115
Summary: [15 regression] RISC-V: miscompile at -O3 with zvl256b
-fsigned-char -fwrapv since r15-1579-g792f97b44ff
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109433
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119116
Bug ID: 119116
Summary: std::use_facet exception message needs more details
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119074
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21ca9153ebe525b077ac96811cfd48be6b259e7e
commit r15-7817-g21ca9153ebe525b077ac96811cfd48be6b259e7e
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: T
Hi,
We make personalized packaging—tuck boxes, CBD boxes, mailer boxes, rigid
boxes, bakery boxes, retail boxes, shopping bags, label stickers and more.
Simply provide us with the dimensions (L x W x H), quantity, and preferred box
style, and we'll provide you with a competitive quote. Plus, fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119098
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Could this be another one of the vsetivli failures?
100% as I get "0" with --param=vsetvl-strategy=simple. But at first sight
unrelated to the previous ones. Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119117
Bug ID: 119117
Summary: Implementation of "if declarations" makes instance
variables unknown under certain conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119049
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21ca9153ebe525b077ac96811cfd48be6b259e7e
commit r15-7817-g21ca9153ebe525b077ac96811cfd48be6b259e7e
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119098
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d7762945bba3c8321b5856cee3d5e5aed55facf
commit r15-7818-g8d7762945bba3c8321b5856cee3d5e5aed55facf
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99590
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Here is a C++17 version which crashes from 8.1+:
> template
> void g(T... args) {
> ([args...](auto){}(args), ...);
> }
>
> int main() { g(0, 1); }
This sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Implementation of "if |[15 Regression]
|decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119117
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60654&action=edit
Reduced further
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119115
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-3-4
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.5.0 |
Summary|[15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
Bug ID: 119118
Summary: substring with negative start index
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119117
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or maybe it started with the patch for PR 20385.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 3/4/25 16:33, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 60647 [details]
> > A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
> >
> > Hongtao,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119111
--- Comment #2 from terryinzaghi ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is a bug?
> https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.decl#dcl.fct-1.sentence-5
> says that the attribute-specifier-seq in your old{4,5,6,7} declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4856292f7a680ec478e7607f1b71781996d7d542
commit r15-7821-g4856292f7a680ec478e7607f1b71781996d7d542
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sun Mar 2
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
