https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113773
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54846260bf9ac1e6253f3ce7ffa7baca049efcdd
commit r14-11784-g54846260bf9ac1e6253f3ce7ffa7baca049efcdd
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
[local count: 1073741824]:
# size_34 = PHI <[/app/example.cpp:123:12] 0(2), [/app/example.cpp:127:9]
size_35(3)>
# DEBUG size => size_34
[/app/example.cpp:126:29] # DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
[/app/example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113773
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc1c1e7f0bb3a295eff1bc8c5d4f4d4b2898d50
commit r14-11779-g1dc1c1e7f0bb3a295eff1bc8c5d4f4d4b2898d50
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm a little nervous about backporting this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114292
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
commit r16-639-g7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
commit r16-639-g7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|14.2.1 |15.1.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a16584beb312bfc493977e472dcb9d11ad5bc76
commit r14-11783-g9a16584beb312bfc493977e472dcb9d11ad5bc76
Author: Nathaniel S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
fold_binary_loc does:
```
/* Convert ABS_EXPR >= 0 to true. */
strict_overflow_p = false;
if (code == GE_EXPR
&& (integer_zerop (arg1)
|| (! HONOR_NANS (arg0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> r15-3530-gdfb63765e994be is listed as dependent, but is it? Can this be
> backported?
The patch applies cleanly, but unfortunately it doesn't help with this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O0 code generation is not important.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Steve, I am still working on it. Always other things getting me in the time
domain. (poles and zeros so to speak, LOL)
I do like some of the checks in Comment #27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||93006
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120279
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure what you are after? That in f1() the earlier of both shifts can
be removed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61427&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120285
Bug ID: 120285
Summary: ice in digest_init_r, at cp/typeck2.cc:1397
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I think this specific case is overly restrictive - it was likely added for some
loop IV test related regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Huiba Li from comment #3)
> > Note the 0 there rather than r. r in the input means any register while 0
> > means it needs to match the same register as the 0th operand which in this
> > case is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #3 from ι²δΈ ---
> Note the 0 there rather than r. r in the input means any register while 0
> means it needs to match the same register as the 0th operand which in this
> case is the output operand.
Thanks for your quick response. Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #5 from Huiba Li ---
> Marking x as an output without tieing it to another register will have
> garbage in the variable after the inline-asm. That is explicitly mentioned.
Oh, I see.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
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=120280
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 79485f9678a..7b2cad9d605 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -2598,6 +2598,15 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
)
)
+/* Convert ABS_EX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
Bug ID: 120284
Summary: inline assembly operand constraint not comply with
document
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The documentation is clear there too:
>From the page you linked:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Output-Operands
"When using β=β, do not assume the location contains the existing value
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
