https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120203
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vineet Gupta :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd042192094c456e275c53dfe92383bec1e9fca3
commit r16-1291-gfd042192094c456e275c53dfe92383bec1e9fca3
Author: Vineet Gupta
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119164
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vineet Gupta :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c0f3b74bf6011b12fe12821ba6e1079309d9445
commit r16-1290-g3c0f3b74bf6011b12fe12821ba6e1079309d9445
Author: Vineet Gupta
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946
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=118946
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61602&action=edit
Patch under testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120216
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Hi there, I now bought an RTX 5060 TI from Nvidia. Nvaccelinfo yields:
Unified Addressing:Yes
Managed Memory:Yes
Concurrent Managed Memory: Yes
Preemption Supported:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120595
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61603
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61603&action=edit
Testcase that is valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[12/13/14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120597
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61604&action=edit
testcase without the >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Bug ID: 120598
Summary: Compiler is unable to vectorise scalar code
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|Segm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120539
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
void f(int b) {
for (auto &friend = 1;;)
;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119741
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845826088c942f7df2ad6fbfe4cb976f83abcd16
commit r16-1299-g845826088c942f7df2ad6fbfe4cb976f83abcd16
Author: Nathan Myers
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I'm pretty sure it's distinct though.
It seems like it since it still fails on the trunk even after the patch to fix
PR120502 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery, |ice-on-valid-code
|ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-std=c++20 is enough for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|ICE: tree check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120597
Bug ID: 120597
Summary: False positive -Wreturn-type after std::unreachable()
or __builtin_unreachable()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120591
Bug ID: 120591
Summary: sarif tests depend on (length of) directory name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
() {
auto new_mul2 = ::std::apply>(mul, std::tuple{ 1.2, 2.3, 3.4 });
}
```
Stack dump:
```
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20250608/include/c++/16.0.0/bits/invoke.h:63:36:
internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2662
63 | { return std::forward<_Fn>(__f)(std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120594
Bug ID: 120594
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
template_class_depth, at cp/pt.cc:43 since 15.1
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120595
Bug ID: 120595
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst_stmt, at
cp/pt.cc:19111 since 7.1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120596
Bug ID: 120596
Summary: Wrong code on -O2 and above (possibly affecting many
versions)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, unevaluated for __builtin_constant_p is not unevaluated in the C++
standard sense, just the behavior that we normally just fold the routine to
false if TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on the operands early. Excep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Indeed, unevaluated for __builtin_constant_p is not unevaluated in the C++
> standard sense, just the behavior that we normally just fold the routine to
> false i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think just folding the builtin to 0 right away might be easier. Note, seems
__builtin_constant_p (0 && ++i) is actually folded to 1, and ditto for
__builtin_constant_p (({ 0 }) && ++i) so we are able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> on a bit more examination - it seems to me that:
>
> http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.await#2
>
> says that this should be ill-formed
>
> Since the GCC doc says:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61467|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> For assume, note the r15-9124-ga6c2248cfd4bc change, just throwing away the
> expression doesn't work well when combining with computed gotos, it is
> invalid bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120339
--- Comment #1 from MARIO RODRIGUEZ BEJAR ---
Another example of this CE showing that it worked before 14.1 and compiled
successfully:
https://godbolt.org/z/hK5G1av89
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115576
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This belong in simplify-rtx, not in combine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Robert,
> I have gotten access, through cfarm.net, to a Solaris system. It happens to
> be
> a big-endian sparc system:
>
> LDOM on Oracle SPARC T8-1 (big-endian)
> Solaris 11.4 Orac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120583
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|wrong code at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116855, which changed state.
Bug 116855 Summary: [14 Regression] Unsafe early-break vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116855
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116855
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> I think just folding the builtin to 0 right away might be easier. Note,
> seems __builtin_constant_p (0 && ++i) is actually folded to 1, and ditto for
> __built
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 16.0.0 20250608 (experimental) (GCC)
[529] %
[529] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[530
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 16.0.0 20250608 (experimental) (GCC)
[508] %
[508] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[509] % ./a.out
Aborted
[510
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #45 from John David Anglin ---
I had a successful build and check with the v18 patch on hppa-linux.
v15 is currently installed in Debian gcc-15. It has problems. It
causes hangs and timeouts in various tests. The pthread_cond_tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74585
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The compiler now seems to assume in earlier passes that parameters and
return values are passed in memory. This is very sub-optimal, all but the
last passes cannot do much useful work this way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120533
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:201cd2d3bef8e935eb9af04a516b9d224b5b8470
commit r16-1285-g201cd2d3bef8e935eb9af04a516b9d224b5b8470
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120590
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Local-Register-Variables.html
Warning: In the above example, be aware that a register (for example r0) can be
call-clobbered by subsequent code, including function calls a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120571
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120590
Bug ID: 120590
Summary: caller-saved register isn't preserved across a call
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity: normal
Priori
bits,__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx,comdat
.globl __x86.get_pc_thunk.bx
.hidden __x86.get_pc_thunk.bx
.type __x86.get_pc_thunk.bx, @function
__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
movl(%esp), %ebx
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.ident "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120592
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |16.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113874
--- Comment #41 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120592
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For assume, note the r15-9124-ga6c2248cfd4bc change, just throwing away the
expression doesn't work well when combining with computed gotos, it is invalid
but we don't want to ICE.
On the other side, assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdfa5fe03512f7ac5a293480f634df68fc973060
commit r16-1298-gcdfa5fe03512f7ac5a293480f634df68fc973060
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #28 from Greg Chandler ---
Everywhere I look at this problem, something doesn't look right, so I took the
drastic step of rebuilding everything. Beause nothing was matching up. Some
things had tls, some didn't, some had ld as gold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111790
Lee Killough changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leekillough at gmail dot com
--- Comment
67 matches
Mail list logo
