https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #10 from Robert Dubner ---
Yes, thank you.
I don't mean to seem like I am being argumentative.
I can't help but note that your selected commands generated three lines of
output from a 50K cppcheck.list file that is 766 lines long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118829
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cjangus at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116588
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Andrew, do you plan to backport this?
>
> Wasn't planning to. Although the fast VRP pass exists in GCC 14,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120414
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-23
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119454
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> clang 19 says
>
> > clang-19 t.C -S -std=c++20
> t.C:4:11: error: no viable overloaded '-='
> 4 | __tmp -= __n
> | ~ ^ ~~~
> t.C:4:17:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120400
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 61500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61500&action=edit
possible fix
Does this fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120412
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120411
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 120411, which changed state.
Bug 120411 Summary: ICE compiling module relating to typedef struct {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120411
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120416
Bug ID: 120416
Summary: unreachable() missing on win32, but not win64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54750
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Assignee|unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120191
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed also for 13.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120196
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed also for 13.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
--- Comment #11 from Robin Dapp ---
Tried building highway to reproduce and hit another error in fre...
Do we have a minimal example for this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Bug ID: 120417
Summary: gcc -m32 -O1 codegen error, leading to SIGSEGV,
workaround -fno-tree-coalesce-vars
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120401
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120402
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119935
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120244
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119934
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119933
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119932
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120386
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bb7a195e7cf95537534a42e7aa8705cc78eba4e
commit r16-849-g1bb7a195e7cf95537534a42e7aa8705cc78eba4e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119975
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-23
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119896
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120384
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bb7a195e7cf95537534a42e7aa8705cc78eba4e
commit r16-849-g1bb7a195e7cf95537534a42e7aa8705cc78eba4e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119454
--- Comment #3 from Simon Sobisch ---
The "how to create a bug report" is identical for all GCC frontends (so far).
It is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#detailed
> In general, all the information we need can be obtained by collecting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119254
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120402
--- Comment #2 from Simon Sobisch ---
Yes, U as per currently IBM (the COBOL Development group is in the process of
adding it for the next standard).
To handle the precedence - feel free to copy GnuCOBOL's implementation in
cobc/tree.c, especia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120328
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119887
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119768
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119793
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119639
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119887
--- Comment #3 from James K. Lowden ---
*** Bug 119639 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 23.05.2025 um 16:54 schrieb jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455
>
> James K. Lowden changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119805
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-23
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61503&action=edit
preprocessed file at regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119633
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120400
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61502&action=edit
preprocessed file before regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Can you provide the preprocessed source?
> >
> > Also since you are linking to a static binary, can you attach t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119633
--- Comment #2 from Simon Sobisch ---
Nearly agreed. As long as there is no "WITH DEBUGGING" active (which you can
warn or even error on) an indicator D is, just as a * or a / an indicator
defining that the line has no executable code.
It can a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119597
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119461
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119215
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119457
--- Comment #2 from Simon Sobisch ---
I tend to disagree as the referenced one is explicit about MOVE (and of course
using matching type assignments and functions, possibly split like for strings
using memcpy+memset for space is most reasonable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119634
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119638
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Starke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you provide the preprocessed source?
>
> Also since you are linking to a static binary, can you attach the before and
> after linker map?
The linker map be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119595
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119524
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455
--- Comment #4 from James K. Lowden ---
*** Bug 119457 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
Bug ID: 120418
Summary: embed testcases issue
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you do that?
The tests are meant to be tested with dejagnu, using make check.
That passes absolute filenames, which works just fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
--- Comment #1 from Alexey ---
I found this issue because failures appeared when testing a toolchain. I wonder
why these tests are not failing for others?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
--- Comment #3 from Alexey ---
I use dejagnu 1.6.3 for testing. And they fails in this way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119211
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I use the same dejagnu and they don't fail. And looking at e.g. the
gcc-testresults mailing lists, they don't fail for others either (there are
some pch/embed-1.c failures in freebsd results but that looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-23
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
what is the "waiting" status for?
( I don't see any trunk commits recently for us to test )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119457
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61504&action=edit
linker maps before and at regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120378
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So what does vnclipu do? But yes, the way to fix is to add an optab for this,
a vectorizer pattern and/or a match rule (in case that insn is a thing for
non-vector as well).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Component|tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120382
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120383
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Sure, I'm OK with an optab for it. So it's like (half-type)((unsigned)(a + b)
>> (sizeof(a)*4))? Does the instruction also work for scalars?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120413
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Technically, this is a [12/13/14/15/16 Regressions], unsurprising as the code
has been added in GCC 12.
* * *
The resulting code for the target regions like:
struct array arr;
<;
try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
taken from openmsx 20.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120400
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> D_V_E? DECL_VALUE_EXPR?
yes..
> I guess we should indeed treat those as having
> side-effects.
struct F {
bool b;
};
int foo (F *a)
{
if (a && !a->b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Similar code size increase is seen for a x86_64-linux target too.
$ size reg-12.2 reg-12.3
textdata bss dec hex filename
818932872 152 84917 14bb5 reg-12.2
816931 24296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15/16 Regression] |[14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> That should be r12-g00ac6fa3f2a (as Andrew linked to).
Gah, I mean r12-9330-g00ac6fa3f2a54f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this is on
using GroupedItems = hash_map, XXHasher>;
static void printItemMap(const GroupedItems& itemMap)
{
auto printSet = to_vector(view::transform(itemMap, [](auto& p) {
return strCat(formatSe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suspect this is a similar problem to Bug 120325 i.e. an iterator type which
is not compatible with C++20 rules, and needs to be fixed or opt-out of being a
C++20 random access iterator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #0)
> Compiling the following C++ code for mingw-w64 using `-O2 -s -static`
> creates a 896 KiB executable instead of 119 KiB since git commit
> releases/gcc-12.2.0-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|16.0|14.3
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3d07ec7ac2ccd935a79b29e1a0e2eb16225286a
commit r16-838-gb3d07ec7ac2ccd935a79b29e1a0e2eb16225286a
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
Bug ID: 120415
Summary: [14/15 Regression] rejects C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 61498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61498&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #8)
> Jim has repaired some of them. I don't know which.
See comment 1.
> So, in order for cppcheck to be useful, especially in the face of its
> extensive config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119835
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We can try making gimplification less dependent on the target here and simply
use
else if (!is_gimple_reg_type (TREE_TYPE (result_decl)))
{
...
instead of checking aggregate_value_p. That might in theo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
1 - 100 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
