https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119442
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/679115.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87939
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
Bug ID: 119444
Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warnings with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Bug ID: 119443
Summary: Peculiar behavior of the new dg-output-file directive
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119446
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119154
--- Comment #14 from Igor Machado Coelho ---
> Worth noting that mixing flags between consumers and producers of modules is
> likely to cause havoc in general... this isn't well tested at all yet.
> I will note though that really the safest wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 119270, which changed state.
Bug 119270 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice
Lake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103001
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101164
Bug 101164 depends on bug 101163, which changed state.
Bug 101163 Summary: slow compilation for huge classes (>20k members functions)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101163
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119380
--- Comment #8 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Waiting one week before backporting to gcc-14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose I should add the testcases to the library though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 7.1.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386
--- Comment #43 from Ard Biesheuvel ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #42)
> > In Linux, we don't even bother with PIC codegen, even though we link with
> > -pie.
>
> My git-grep for that is coming up empty, where should I look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
For me, it still looks pretty brutal:
+6.47% 6.45% cc1plus cc1plus [.] push_to_top_level
+5.34% 5.33% cc1plus cc1plus [.]
get_class_binding_direct
54.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(That's on the PR116285 testcase.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119437
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #2)
>
> Thank you. Indeed, surprising that nobody reported it. I have seen an old
> issue in OpenBLAS repo re Solaris and Darwin, but it was of 2015, I assumed
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119435
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the change to disable the priorities support was done for PR 34587.
Specifically see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34587#c11 on the
reason at the time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7c0b0fc4fdeaf034dc38356830625f7280d325d
commit r15-8872-gf7c0b0fc4fdeaf034dc38356830625f7280d325d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118541
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
I submitted the patch for this on February 12th, 2025:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/675616.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60866|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119440
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 60868
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60868&action=edit
Tentative fix
This appears to work for me on the mainline:
gcc/gnat: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thinking of it more, I think enabling memory alternatives in
(define_insn "sse4_1_v4hiv4si2"
[(set (match_operand:V4SI 0 "register_operand" "=Yr,*x,v")
(any_extend:V4SI
(vec_select:V4HI
(m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> Thank you! I will have a go.
If there are already tests available in the testsuite that test for this
output, just update the output. You do not need to add a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111263
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
I believe the patch for 118541 fixes this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/675616.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111263
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So the real question is why has the size of the frame changed once it's too
> late to change the frame layout?
The frame size has not changed, rather the value returned by get_frame_size has
because of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119425
--- Comment #4 from Hu Lin ---
Created attachment 60870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60870&action=edit
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119449
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:127a24ede2f82eafecb5eb142e21dbda38d06c18
commit r15-8877-g127a24ede2f82eafecb5eb142e21dbda38d06c18
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 60866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60866&action=edit
global_scope_p opt
Does this help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116561
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113571
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1436
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113571
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1436
```
Additional note (March, 2022):
The proposed resolution shown above allows lambda-express
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119428
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 60861 [details]
> gcc15-pr119428-1.patch
>
> Untested fix for x86. This isn't a SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED target, so we'd
> better not drop the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119449
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119450
Bug ID: 119450
Summary: Crash at -O3: during RTL pass: peephole2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119450
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The insn which the peephole causing an ICE for:
```
(insn 26 10 12 2 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (and:DI (mem:DI (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 0 ax [orig:105 _2
] [105])) [3 *_4+0 S8 A64])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #18)
> Yes the multiple passes are a problem. They also do redundant work I believe.
> But it would be easier to just check opt_tailcalls I think instead of adding
> a n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119227
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #20 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
> Anyway, working now on the local vars and warnings for that.
Thanks.
I tried it, but so far it doesn't work correctly. I guess I don't
fully understand the subtleties of the alias machinery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119222
--- Comment #16 from Gwen Fu ---
I am void under the gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc file
warnings_for_convert_and_check (location_t loc, tree type, tree expr, tree
result) function performs the following judgment and processing:
/*"inifity to int" thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119415
--- Comment #5 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #4)
> If want to support user-defined containers, I think we should check if
> iterator_traits::iterator category exists, before calling
> insert(Iterator, Iterator) overload.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you expect a dg-output-file comparison failure but not that the program
actually succeeds with 0 exit status, it should be
*> { dg-do run }
*> { dg-output-file "ofile-fail.expected" { xfail *-*-* } }
BTW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119362
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 119444, which changed state.
Bug 119444 Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warnings with LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119390
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119415
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
If want to support user-defined containers, I think we should check if
iterator_traits::iterator category exists, before calling insert(Iterator,
Iterator) overload.
This will prevent hard-errors from old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119383
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97210
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119447
Bug ID: 119447
Summary: ICE Segmentation fault with incorrect template class
declaration syntax and varadic parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119446
Bug ID: 119446
Summary: ICE in finish_member_declaration, at
cp/semantics.cc:4235
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking, ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119432
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=119414
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119441
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only place where SLP vectorizer happens is in func creating:
```
_11 = (unsigned intD.11) &_ZL4buf4D.7612;
_12 = (unsigned intD.11) &_ZL4buf5D.7613;
_13 = (unsigned intD.11) &_ZL4buf7D.7615;
_14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119447
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844
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=119386
--- Comment #42 from Alexander Monakov ---
> In Linux, we don't even bother with PIC codegen, even though we link with
> -pie.
My git-grep for that is coming up empty, where should I look?
> ... on x86_64, where PIC and non-PIC codegen are r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110827
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Michael Duggan from comment #19)
> I submitted a patch.
Yes a saw that - thanks, it does need other people to review it though,
> I also recently thought of another potential solution.
> We co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88254
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119439
Bug 119439 depends on bug 117287, which changed state.
Bug 117287 Summary: [13 Regression] assume attribute related miscompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #13)
> Possible kludge to work around the questionable mechanism:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc b/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc
> index 59b41e3d046..2d51874a05b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #16)
> That can't be right. If the frame size has changed, then the frame needs to
> be laid out again and any earlier layout assumptions revisited.
Here's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87556
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119436
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88960
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119445
Bug ID: 119445
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected template_decl, have
error_mark in build_deduction_guide, at cp/pt.cc:30483
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110827
--- Comment #19 from Michael Duggan ---
I submitted a patch. I also recently thought of another potential solution.
We could patch the code that outputs the function information for the graph
file, changing it to *not* mark the actor function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #18 from Andi Kleen ---
Yes the multiple passes are a problem. They also do redundant work I believe.
But it would be easier to just check opt_tailcalls I think instead of adding a
new variable.
>Plus, given that tail_calls pass use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88154
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119414
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 60865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60865&action=edit
gcc15-pr119376-locals.patch
Untested patch on top of the gcc15-pr119376-c11.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing |-Wall handling with -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119390
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Schwab :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6e7d9ca72cb424b7af9357d77209eb7dd14621a
commit r15-8866-gc6e7d9ca72cb424b7af9357d77209eb7dd14621a
Author: Andreas Schwab
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844#c3 on why.
Let me clarify, I meant to say see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844#c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119329
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=83309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rbuergel at web dot de
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119448
Bug ID: 119448
Summary: Private base class name of base class seems should be
inaccessible in friend class declaration in its
derived class
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119452
Bug ID: 119452
Summary: Should copy ctor of template class be allowed to have
specified template argument?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119453
Bug ID: 119453
Summary: Dependent name instantiation seems should not be
delayed inside 'noexcept' field of friend function
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rush102333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119425
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119453
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117#c6 reads exactly about this.
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
