https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
--- Comment #3 from François Hamonic ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Confirmed, it seems this gets fixed if we implement the updated proposed
> resolution for LWG 4166 (https://wg21.link/lwg4166). We currently implement
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Bug ID: 120940
Summary: [15 Regression] False positive -Wduplicated-branches
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] False |[15/16 Regression] False
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #16 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #12)
> This is interesting here's the IR dump right after objsz:
>
> The key bit is:
>
> map2_4 = __builtin_malloc (8);
> pin_pointer (&buf);
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120945
Bug ID: 120945
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity with std::bind_front
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Porlbem goes away with
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
index d1a55dbcbcb..52ca189531e 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
@@ -25012,9 +25012,8 @@ add_call_src_coords_attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
Bug ID: 120944
Summary: Incorrect optimization with accessing a volatile
structure member
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> Yes, compatibility with old glibc is a concern, considering this can be
> difficult to test, and failures can be largely silent.
What are your suggestions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 16 so far
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
body: .LFB[0-9]+:
.*\t.cfi_.*
\t1:callmcount
.*
against: .LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq%rsp, %rbp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96635
Julian Waters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tanksherman27 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #12 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
This is interesting here's the IR dump right after objsz:
struct magic_map * apprentice_load ()
{
unsigned int i;
char b[1024];
struct magic_ * ptr;
struct magic_map * map2;
char buf[128];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118948
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simple fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index 47492575d00..8867540243b 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -15224,7 +15224,7 @@ bool
tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #5 from Nikolas Klauser ---
Is there any update on this? It'd be really nice if libc++ could be used with
GCC without any crashes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #20 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
I'll backport to the gcc-15 branch after it marinates on trunk for a day or so,
allowing various CIs to test it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #20)
> I'll backport to the gcc-15 branch after it marinates on trunk for a day or
> so, allowing various CIs to test it.
I don't know for certain, but you may need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Removing the parameter of inc makes the problem to go away. So does removing
the recursion
#include
volatile int variablev;
static int dead ()
{
return 0;
}
static void inc()
{
variablev++;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
--- Comment #2 from François Hamonic ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Confirmed, it seems this gets fixed if we implement the updated proposed
> resolution for LWG 4166 (https://wg21.link/lwg4166). We currently implement
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118856
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b19e40f982829c460439d270d34c5c848d90c6e
commit r15-9916-g6b19e40f982829c460439d270d34c5c848d90c6e
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120684
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b19e40f982829c460439d270d34c5c848d90c6e
commit r15-9916-g6b19e40f982829c460439d270d34c5c848d90c6e
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:612690936f5ddd122b60cf843cb4f40ae7ede436
commit r15-9917-g612690936f5ddd122b60cf843cb4f40ae7ede436
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #17 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #12)
> > This is interesting here's the IR dump right after objsz:
> >
> > The key bit is:
> >
> > map2_4 = __b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120806
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This deviation from the standard is intentional, and was part of the original
design, and was present in the reference implementation:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p1132r8.html#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120806
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The implementation in libstdc++ is the one called "friendly" in the P1132R8
paper. This was clearly intended to be allowed:
"Teams eager to squeeze out performance realize they can only do this by
relying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37bf13adcda564dfdb28c3aa736f2cac71c73d09
commit r16-1918-g37bf13adcda564dfdb28c3aa736f2cac71c73d09
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78ce4720d13b3e82a4c718880a9ca9f0e955cf7e
commit r13-9781-g78ce4720d13b3e82a4c718880a9ca9f0e955cf7e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||16.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase that segfaults at runtime with -O3 -mavx512bw -mavx512vl --param
vect-partial-vector-usage=1
#include
std::vector quadrature_points;
double weights[5];
static double __attribute__((aligned(64))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #17 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> So it looks like (a * b) are closer in value to (vnb12 * 1.2e+1 - c) than
> (vnb12 * 1.2e+1) is to (a * b - c) .
Btw, for the purpose of me trying to get better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] 20-40% |[16 Regression] 10-40%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
Bug ID: 120942
Summary: internal compiler error happend when i lose include
some file
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Even smaller set of example. Bad profile:
#include
volatile int variablev;
static void inc()
{
variablev++;
}
static int zero = 0;
int main ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #14)
> (In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> > Here's a super-minimal test case:
> >
> thanks for the smaller testing case, it has the same behavior as the one
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61793&action=edit
good assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61795&action=edit
Diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61794&action=edit
bad assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120199
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120874 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.2|12.5
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120946
--- Comment #5 from Jesse T ---
Moved to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120855
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mcore-elf |mcore-elf, nvptx
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|14.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118130
Bug 118130 depends on bug 108487, which changed state.
Bug 108487 Summary: [12/13 Regression] ~20-30x slowdown in populating
std::vector from std::ranges::iota_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120859
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this file just needs `/* { dg-do compile } */`
>
> I will check tomorrow.
I actually think this is the correct fix:
```
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9c43140bee94587cd60c8476db8c0e699206841
commit r15-9920-gf9c43140bee94587cd60c8476db8c0e699206841
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3db50e3a41af53f87e94cd31e86f63126b8
commit r14-11876-gf3db50e3a41af53f87e94cd31e86f63126b8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc90649466a54ab61926d88500a05f59a55cb055
commit r16-1990-gdc90649466a54ab61926d88500a05f59a55cb055
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3689dc2061481fa789dbf7b6ab55a8e5f52f198
commit r13-9783-gf3689dc2061481fa789dbf7b6ab55a8e5f52f198
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed950a9ed384389ff07ac793b7065abe31bcae3f
commit r12-11245-ged950a9ed384389ff07ac793b7065abe31bcae3f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Qing, is it the same glibc version in the arm64 environment vs the x86-64 one?
I think it might be what Sergei said:
> It still needs glibc, but if you would not be able to reproduce I'll
> preprocess it as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120934
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5a17e92ebf0c6f3887fb5698a1114a3fdf50576
commit r16-1986-gc5a17e92ebf0c6f3887fb5698a1114a3fdf50576
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120369
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cb1108c0929311f73fc9210d29681ba49607b8d
commit r15-9918-g2cb1108c0929311f73fc9210d29681ba49607b8d
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120940
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61796&action=edit
gcc16-pr120940.patch
Brown paper bag time, very sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #457 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have performed some tests now.
The patch to reduce the R0 lifetimes is definitely still required:
0853a85ba96fa8642aac5315812c26a41966fede SH: Try to reduce R0 live ranges
Without it, I'm s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936-10.c check-function-bodies foo
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936-11.c check-function-bodies foo
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr120936-12.c check-function-bodies foo
+FAIL: gcc.tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #10 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #7)
>
> Crashing:
>
> $ gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -O1 apprentice.c -o bug && ./bug
> In file included from /usr/include/string.h:548,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #458 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
OK, 51c41253e9ddd7457b4de710ea5271ef564833fd SH: Pin input args to hard-regs
via predicates for sfuncs is required for
0853a85ba96fa8642aac5315812c26a41966fede SH: Try to reduce R0 live ranges.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #14 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> Here's a super-minimal test case:
>
thanks for the smaller testing case, it has the same behavior as the one Sergei
provided in comment #7: O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120942
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also can you provide the full output of "gcc -v" ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120716
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120945
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> It is more understanding how floating point works and gave a rounding step.
> And that fma does the multiple and addition in infinite precision and only
> roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
> interesting - it does not show on i686-linux or darwin.
Endianess (or strict-alignment) issue?
> I am assuming 32b solaris/sparc has 32b pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120938
Bug ID: 120938
Summary: discriminators are not useful in statements doing
multiple calls
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120624
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72b828227f8faf8f0a85735a5c27545378cf20c5
commit r14-11871-g72b828227f8faf8f0a85735a5c27545378cf20c5
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120624
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120711
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b7a779b85df65a29fe3820886cbd72663b6dba4
commit r15-9914-g8b7a779b85df65a29fe3820886cbd72663b6dba4
Author: Andre Vehre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
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=120711
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > So it looks like (a * b) are closer in value to (vnb12 * 1.2e+1 - c) than
> > (vnb12 * 1.2e+1) is to (a * b - c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120711
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Albert ---
Thank you, Andre! I am impressed how fast and professionally this was fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
interesting - it does not show on i686-linux or darwin.
I am assuming 32b solaris/sparc has 32b pointers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118886
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118886
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:83d19b5d842dadc1720b57486d4675a238966ba4
commit r16-1984-g83d19b5d842dadc1720b57486d4675a238966ba4
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Thu Jul 3 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120939
Bug ID: 120939
Summary: vect_need_peeling_or_partial_vectors_p accesses not
yet computed LOOP_VINFO_COST_MODEL_THRESHOLD
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72e85d46472716e670cbe6e967109473b8d12d38
commit r16-1972-g72e85d46472716e670cbe6e967109473b8d12d38
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119742
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9930876ed788a7da18ccef0c91f4f12749da1df7
commit r16-1973-g9930876ed788a7da18ccef0c91f4f12749da1df7
Author: Nathan Myers
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110339
Bug 110339 depends on bug 119742, which changed state.
Bug 119742 Summary: [C++26] Implement P2697R1, Interfacing bitset with
string_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119742
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119742
Nathan Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So it's interesting, we somehow get a AVX vectorized main loop with a AVX512
vectorized masked epilog. It must have sth to do with max-iterations vs.
actually known ones, but
static const double a[] = { 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120936
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:349da53f13de274864d01b6ccc466961c472dbe1
commit r16-1971-g349da53f13de274864d01b6ccc466961c472dbe1
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jul 3 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61792&action=edit
gcc16-pr120837.patch
Untested patch which instead of dropping the optimization simply performs
everything in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5f0faa4eb71650a9dde3938c3a98eda710534de
commit r12-11244-gb5f0faa4eb71650a9dde3938c3a98eda710534de
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120931
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc3ec8684f7111a06fde433bbe57caa385b178af
commit r16-1966-gbc3ec8684f7111a06fde433bbe57caa385b178af
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15413e05eb9cde976b8890cd9b597d0a41a8eb27
commit r16-1967-g15413e05eb9cde976b8890cd9b597d0a41a8eb27
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8d5e2a8031e74f08f61ccdd727476f97940c5a6
commit r16-1917-gd8d5e2a8031e74f08f61ccdd727476f97940c5a6
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jul 3 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d21bfd170f939625abee3e230a6d41d7e1529ed3
commit r14-11872-gd21bfd170f939625abee3e230a6d41d7e1529ed3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120933
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
