https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66300
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.1.0 |14.2.0
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119673
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119626
--- Comment #7 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Today Microsoft Copilot wrongly quoted what I earlier said (bots are reading
these threads), so I need to fix my mistake for anyone reading this thread:
If you want to allow the compiler to use the bf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
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=119672
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I will test this on aarch64-linux but don't have setup to test it for riscv.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119677
Bug ID: 119677
Summary: [OpenMP][6.1] Support omp_default_device / Cleanup
modify_call_for_omp_dispatch via
GOMP_DEVICE_DEFAULT_OMP_61
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, I've posted it to gcc-patches in case some CI picks it up too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-April/680408.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119675
Bug ID: 119675
Summary: nvptx 'error: PTX does not support weak declarations
(only weak definitions)'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #7 from Haochen Jiang ---
The problem is under msabi, -fzero-call-used-regs=all will also try to clear
xmm16+. However, under -mavx512f -mno-evex512, we have no instructions to do
that.
There are two solutions for that:
1. Reject m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #7 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry ---
89ca1e3cb697a87f02682a1fb1f62f02d0671c57 Should have fixed this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is on trying to optimize MINUS of
(unspec:RVVMF32BI [
(and:RVVMF32BI (const_vector:RVVMF32BI repeat [
(const_int 1 [0x1])
])
(reg:RVVMF32BI 147
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119676
Bug ID: 119676
Summary: [OpenMP] Move constant/kind/type documentation from
gfortran to libgomp.texi + update/add C/C++
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Peter Dimov pointed out an even simpler example of valid-but-questionable code:
std::unique_ptr p(new int);
p.reset(p.get());
(void) p.release();
The pointer is invalidated by the self-reset, but then is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119678
Bug ID: 119678
Summary: FreeBSD RISC-V broken due to single-char typo in macro
FBSD_LINK_PG_NOTES
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119678
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Summary|FreeBSD RISC-V bro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge ---
GCC/Rust master branch commit b9aaa6192f3310a0cb26f7773b31703a8c9c544c "nr2.0:
Improve test script" you mean? Yes, likely -- but that's not yet in upstream
GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
It is, as r15-9287-g89ca1e3cb697a8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|ICE compiling Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119625
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15baa0055601a00b77e2e0ed6259bbc9e5ea5fa9
commit r15-9306-g15baa0055601a00b77e2e0ed6259bbc9e5ea5fa9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119679
Bug ID: 119679
Summary: [RISC-V] Compiler adds and removes stack to functions
even when not needed
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
It's enough to compile with: -std=gnu89 -Os -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
Using -O2 or dropping -fno-omit-frame-pointer hides the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119669
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119671
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e33b62eed7fd0a82d758b23252d288585b6790d2
commit r15-9273-ge33b62eed7fd0a82d758b23252d288585b6790d2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119673
--- Comment #1 from Cyano Hao ---
Command to compile std module:
```
Z:\tmp\test\mingw64-win32-15\mingw64-win32-15\bin\x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -c
-m64 -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -O3 -std=c++23
-fmodules-ts -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119667
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66300
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119679
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am suspect there is a dup of this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119678
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f53c5cde64770d6c175737a50fea81feba80
commit r15-9312-gf53c5cde64770d6c175737a50fea81feba80
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Maybe it's moot given Jakub's observation, but git bisect identified
9d20529d94b23275885f380d155fe8671ab5353a is the first new commit
commit 9d20529d94b23275885f380d155fe8671ab5353a (HEAD)
Author: Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Aarch64 |Aarch64 x86_64
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #3 from Artemiy Volkov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Under certain conditions
>
> Yes it depends on the micro-arch . In many new ones the rename (move) is
> free as long as there are enough rename registers.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #4 from Artemiy Volkov ---
Created attachment 61036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61036&action=edit
patch v0.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Aarch64 x86_64 |Aarch64 x86_64 riscv
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119662
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The "incremental" patch turned out to be mostly independent from the other
(except for both touching adjacent lines in one spot), and Richi has acked that
one, so I've committed it now. The earlier patch s
igured with: ../../src/gcc/configure --enable-checking --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/home/art/install/aarch64-gcc
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.1 20250408 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the above was clearly problematic also in native cobol1, because it emits
random garbage from compiler memory into the binaries and decides on whether it
is same exception as previously based on the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cobol/structs.h.jj 2025-03-28 20:34:01.659747026 +0100
+++ gcc/cobol/structs.h 2025-04-08 16:20:56.436127535 +0200
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ extern GTY(()) tree cblc_field_p_type_no
extern GTY(()) tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:659e222b82c41ae0730a0bb93d891864b6ae5e16
commit r13-9497-g659e222b82c41ae0730a0bb93d891864b6ae5e16
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
If we strengthen the comment #6 testcase with
@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ concept tt = ;
template typename U>
concept is_specialization_of = tt;
template concept is_foo = is_specialization_of;
-auto ttt = is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > Started with r14-9938, though I bet before this commit it only accidentally
> > worked.
>
> This failure does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Thanks, I've posted it to gcc-patches in case some CI picks it up too:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-April/680408.html
Testing looked good on rv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119662
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f77d88fdf797842ac0134a4013b4227dd5a658f
commit r15-9314-g0f77d88fdf797842ac0134a4013b4227dd5a658f
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119637
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119612
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3382d9d675f42db96a51d902afc49a0a4cfadee
commit r15-9315-ga3382d9d675f42db96a51d902afc49a0a4cfadee
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
Nicolas Boulenguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59360|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nlebedenko at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Artemiy Volkov from comment #10)
>
> CMIIW, but this live range splitting is done a bit later by web and works
> well in the case where those pseudos' live ranges can be split without
> changi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119682
--- Comment #1 from Simon Sobisch ---
Created attachment 61038
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61038&action=edit
original program showing the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #12 from Artemiy Volkov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Artemiy Volkov from comment #10)
> >
> > CMIIW, but this live range splitting is done a bit later by web and works
> > well in the case where th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119682
Bug ID: 119682
Summary: reference-modification (temporary literal?) yields
wrong result
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #7 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119680
Bug ID: 119680
Summary: [15 Regression] Bootstrap fails with --enable-host-pie
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04918a2d3f20b02ac3efad1096c33894d57789a0
commit r15-9316-g04918a2d3f20b02ac3efad1096c33894d57789a0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So this is likely a Zen5 tuning thing that makes the vectorization profitable.
Though since this just transforms stores this cannot be a STLF fail, instead
it's likely the vector(4) long unsigned int builds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119652
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117530
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d034c78c7be613db3c25fddec1dd50222327117b
commit r15-9313-gd034c78c7be613db3c25fddec1dd50222327117b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119574
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk the following partial revert fixes the testcase. The backported
fix for PR116567 didn't contain this optimization so I conclude that fix
caused a different issue?
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117530
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119594
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a8e821577dfb535aa54df311ccb282363a93355
commit r15-9307-g1a8e821577dfb535aa54df311ccb282363a93355
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119664
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
>(Note that the GIMPLE unroller already does this, but it doesn't handle
>uncountable loops.)
Actually the gimple unroller does NOT duplicate exit blocks at all. Rather it
is how out of ssa works when it d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119681
--- Comment #7 from Artemiy Volkov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> >(Note that the GIMPLE unroller already does this, but it doesn't handle
> >uncountable loops.)
>
> Actually the gimple unroller does NOT duplicate exit block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90468
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's referring to control-flow problems and data-flow problems, but
maybe I'm wrong about that. I'm not sure what a warning about control is, but I
know what control flow is
Also, I think the origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119629
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119629
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Alex,
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #0)
> This raises a number of problems:
>
> - instructions and expanders for these builtins don't have their conditions
> tested, so they must necess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #17 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #12)
> > Substituting into seems like a partial
> > substitution to me. If the lambda itself had any template parame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119672
--- Comment #11 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > Thanks, I've posted it to gcc-patches in case some CI picks it up too:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka ---
I think I see what you mean -- for the instantiate_template (and possibly even
coerce_template_parms) call site, we could define and pass a new flag
tf_no_level_lowering instead of tf_partial to tell tsubst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-11-17 00:00:00 |2025-4-8
Assignee|nathan at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119668
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Lebedenko ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >It does not appear in GCC 14.1+.
>
> Did you read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#dontwant ?
> > Duplicate bug reports, or reports of bugs already fixed in the d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] Bootstrap |Build fails with
|fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b5b02be5740b69f670b1591ac63eb6a69ff1f79
commit r15-9317-g1b5b02be5740b69f670b1591ac63eb6a69ff1f79
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> Started with r14-9938, though I bet before this commit it only accidentally
> worked.
This failure does seem to be strongly connected to that commit.
When nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87900
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question now comes should this be handled too:
```
typedef int type;
#define size (4)
type *foo ()
{
type *p = (type *)__builtin_malloc (size*sizeof(type));
type tmp[size] = {};
__builtin_memcpy(p,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/f4b5d106-8176-b7bd-709b-d43518878...@acm.org/
Ok, Nathan did submit something similar to my patch in the end and I missed it.
Let me poke at the probility counts bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|malloc & memset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119533
--- Comment #11 from Vineet Gupta ---
Debug log for the smaller test [1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-April/680355.html
It hits the same ABNORMAL_EDGE assert.
- bb 17 has V insns, needing vsetvl - which LCM tries to "bubble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61041
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61041&action=edit
Testcases for probability
In the case of dontcombine and maybecombine we should not do the combine of
memset/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang does not check for probability.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||83022
See Also|https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://reviews.llvm.org/D1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119175
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
