https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119139
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/dlang/dm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119172
Bug ID: 119172
Summary: [12/13/14 regression] macOS SDK version is not set by
gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119172
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||*-apple-darwin*
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119154
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Suspended until this is approved by the C committee for the names.
On the other hand, my experience with the C Committee is that they aren't the
best place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #23 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7232c005afb5002cdfd0a2dbd0e8b8f2d80250ce
commit r15-7913-g7232c005afb5002cdfd0a2dbd0e8b8f2d80250ce
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119054
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4f886c463fffd0bd2b1c98fa668c20aab5b37d2
commit r14-11395-ge4f886c463fffd0bd2b1c98fa668c20aab5b37d2
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119176
Bug ID: 119176
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault at c_push_function_context()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119177
Bug ID: 119177
Summary: ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-09
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119178
Bug ID: 119178
Summary: Optimization: (x != C) comparison can utilize (x - C)
or (x ^ C) result
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Bug ID: 119174
Summary: [15 Regression] IRA allocating value live across a
call to call clobbered register
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||msp430-elf
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103391
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b2a359d348e2255cbf5b548540ecd8a5fa5a59
commit r14-11394-gc6b2a359d348e2255cbf5b548540ecd8a5fa5a59
Author: Andre Vehreschi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
{
[] {};
} {};
} {}
int main() {
from();
}
```
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250309/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-libstdcxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
Uwe Lohmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119097
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Modules references internal |Modules treats non-ODR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119133
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Dimitar Dimitrov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b21da6abf22f164adb5d03cc91ef09472d035db
commit r15-7912-g1b21da6abf22f164adb5d03cc91ef09472d035db
Author: Dimitar Dimitrov
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It seems interesting to have a mem inside a mem for the call instruction.
> Also maybe the post_inc is what it is getting confused here .
Maybe that is correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Krupcale ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> Neither PR is a regression and defined assignment is so fundamentally
> incorrect, where defined assignment of components is concerned, that
> sticking plaster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119139
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression with struct |[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119139
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119172
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119154
--- Comment #10 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Created attachment 60689
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60689&action=edit
pr119154.patch
A minimal fix would be to avoid doing 'note_vague_linkage_fn' for 'gnu_inline'
functions in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119173
Bug ID: 119173
Summary: Documentation for -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant
should move to Warning Options
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ed07a11ee2845c2085a3cd5cff043209a452441
commit r15-7915-g4ed07a11ee2845c2085a3cd5cff043209a452441
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Mar 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d3aec2a832ef47be547d9426187562e4548bae6
commit r15-7916-g7d3aec2a832ef47be547d9426187562e4548bae6
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Mar 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80042
--- Comment #9 from Peter Damianov ---
Unfortunately my patch causes ICEs in functions that optimize separate sin+cos
calls to sincos/cexpi, for reasons I'm not completely sure of.
Like the following:
typedef struct { float x,y; } Vector2;
//
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have backported cleanly and regression tested on 14 branch. Will push
shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #0)
> I've also bisected an mcore-elf regression to the same change, but have not
> debugged it as the testcase is more complex and GDB port for mcore faults,
> so de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109066
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6f90e015f642424ba0e94871d9389facaca5395
commit r14-11396-gf6f90e015f642424ba0e94871d9389facaca5395
Author: Paul Thomas
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #0)
> > I've also bisected an mcore-elf regression to the same change, but have not
> > debugged it as the testcase is m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
Thanks. Please try to reproduce it manually next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119179
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do you have a good example where this should be used?
I am thinking using on uninitialized on a class is even more error-prone and
invasive rather than on variables themselves.
Even more this is a security
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #11)
> Andrew. You're missing the point. This scenario isn't the kind of thing
> that reload and LRA are supposed to fix. They fix constraint problems. ie,
> I g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119179
Bug ID: 119179
Summary: Allow the [[gnu:::uninitialized]] attribute on classes
/ non-static data members
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f5b508bc5c16ae11ea385f6031487a518f62c8f
commit r15-7914-g9f5b508bc5c16ae11ea385f6031487a518f62c8f
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Commenting out TARGET_LRA_P in msp430.cc and gets us code that works:
```
.L2:
CMP.W R9, R10 { JL.L3
; start of epilogue
ADD.W #2, R1
POPM.W #2, r10
RET
.L3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think the mcore failure was graphite/interchange-0.
On the topic of reload vs LRA. The code is broken before IRA hands off to
LRA/reload in the msp430 case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Commenting out TARGET_LRA_P in msp430.cc and gets us code that works:
> ```
> .L2:
> CMP.W R9, R10 { JL.L3
> ; start of epilogue
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|15.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think the wrong code is due to reload NOT being able to handle:
(mem/f:HI (post_inc:HI (reg:HI 26 [ ivtmp.10 ])) [1 MEM[(int (*) (int)
*)_18]+0 S2 A16])
That is if you look at:
```
void f3(int x, int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119180
Bug ID: 119180
Summary: GCC Accepts Non-Standard Variable-Length Arrays (VLAs)
in C++ Without Warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qurong at ios dot ac.cn
--- Comment #26 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168
--- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl ---
I have seen noisier, but yeah. And 5% isn't *that* much and the benchmark got
a bit better (as I wrote). Maybe we could mark this as WONTFIX. I'll probably
do it if nobody becomes interested in this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
Bug ID: 119181
Summary: Missed vectorization due to imperfect SLP discovery
for strided & interleaved load.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like it is missing the commutativity property of multiply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like it is missing the commutativity property of multiply.
Note compiler options is with Ofast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119182
Bug ID: 119182
Summary: Compiler Fails to Diagnose Redefinition of Type Alias
in Lambda Scope
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119114
--- Comment #19 from Li Pan ---
> No you got it wrong.
> _121 will either be -1 or 0. _11 should be -1 or 0 too.
> So the question is what was the VEC_EXTRACT doing the right thing? Is it 0/-1
> or 0/1?
Oh, I see. Let me revisit the dump code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5cb69a5e4f136dd92c2182d6744aff2c12291a4f
commit r14-11398-g5cb69a5e4f136dd92c2182d6744aff2c12291a4f
Author: Paul Thomas
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #10)
> Thanks Jerry! I think you may also have to backport the fix [1] for PR118640
> to avoid regression on the 14 branch as well.
>
> [1]
> https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
void
foo (int* a, int* __restrict b)
{
b[0] = a[0] * a[256];
b[1] = a[257] * a[1];
b[2] = a[2] * a[258];
b[3] = a[259] * a[3];
b[4] = a[260] * a[4];
b[5] = a[261] * a[5];
b[6] = a[6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119159
--- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl ---
>From the graph it looks like the slowdown is gone. The benchmark exec time is
at its previous value. I'm gonna wait for the automated benchmark to run again
and confirm this and then I'll close this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Looks like it is missing the commutativity property of multiply.
> Note compiler options is with Ofast.
What i mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119182
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang does not warn here about ty1 being redeclared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Looks like if both operands satisfy same STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS as first
> stmt, we'd better have a heuristic to choose more closer one?
If all grouped operations satisfy commutative property.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119182
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Rather `const int` vs `int`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119182
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
void
foo (int* a, int* __restrict b, int* c)
{
b[0] = a[0] * c[256];
b[1] = c[257] * a[1];
b[2] = a[2] * c[258];
b[3] = c[259] * a[3];
b[4] = c[260] * a[4];
b[5] = c[261] * a[5];
b[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119183
Bug ID: 119183
Summary: Compilation Timeout Issue
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qurong at ios dot ac.cn
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119174
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Andrew. You're missing the point. This scenario isn't the kind of thing that
reload and LRA are supposed to fix. They fix constraint problems. ie, I got
the wrong kind of register (wrong register file)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #10 from Matthew Krupcale ---
Thanks Jerry! I think you may also have to backport the fix [1] for PR118640 to
avoid regression on the 14 branch as well.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=3600b1ff14a459e84bb40bdfea7c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119180
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119180
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Actual Result:
> GCC compiles the code silently (or with -pedantic warns but still succeeds).
"Warns but still succeeds" is a correct behavior.
The standard NEVER says "the code should be rejected." It only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119180
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>with -pedantic warns but still succeeds
You need -pedantic-errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Nuts. Busted most of the optimizations for rv64 with the change to the use side
handling. I guess that's what I get for trying to generalize a pattern I was
seeing -- I'd tested the ad-hoc variant on rv64
83 matches
Mail list logo
