[Bug target/114861] LoongArch: ICE building the kernel with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114861 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > m for register_operand??? Hmm indeed, the m alternative should be removed. I must had been sleeping when I typed it...

[Bug target/114861] LoongArch: ICE building the kernel with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114861 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-reduction |ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #5 from Xi Ru

[Bug target/114861] [14/15 Regression] LoongArch: ICE building the kernel with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114861 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-26 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/114861] [14/15 Regression] LoongArch: ICE building the kernel with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114861 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/114848] loongarch: epilogue in _Unwind_RaiseException corrupts return value due to __builtin_eh_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114848 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/114978] [14/14 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoy

[Bug target/114978] [14/14 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Target||loongarch64-*-* Component|fortran

[Bug target/114978] [14/14 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- s/suspicious/skeptical/

[Bug other/114980] New: [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 Bug ID: 114980 Summary: [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings Product: gcc

[Bug other/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 --- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao --- Also happens for "command-line option ... is valid for ... but not for ..." warnings: $ env -i PATH=$PATH TERM=xterm-256colors cc hw.c -fdiagnostics-urls=never -Wtarget-lifetime cc1: warning: command-line optio

[Bug other/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > I have not seen this failure ... Yes it's strange. I didn't see the failures building 14.1.0-RC1 but I saw them building 14.1.0, though RC1 definitely outputs the

[Bug other/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > -fdiagnostics-plain-output does: > /* If you have changed the default diagnostics output, and this new > output is not appropriately "plain" (

[Bug other/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao --- Looks like when the driver invokes cc1, -fdiagnostics-urls=never seems always after -W... options: $ echo "" | LANG= ./gcc/xgcc -fdiagnostics-urls=never -Wtarget-lifetime -x c - -B gcc -v -c Reading specs from

[Bug other/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-05-08 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug driver/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug driver/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- ht

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > index e8c129ce643..f27284cb20a 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loonga

[Bug testsuite/115001] New: pr109062.c fails on hybrid Intel CPU

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115001 Bug ID: 115001 Summary: pr109062.c fails on hybrid Intel CPU Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite

[Bug testsuite/115001] [14/15 Regression] pr109062.c fails on hybrid Intel CPU

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115001 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|pr109062.c fails on hybrid |[14/15 Regression] |Intel

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #12) > No. I used system default gcc. AOSC backports *many* changes not in upstream GCC 13.2 to their "13.2": https://github.com/AOSC-Dev/aosc-os-abbs/tree/stable/core-deve

[Bug driver/114980] [14/15 Regression] -fdiagnostics-urls=never does not suppress URLs in `'-Werror=' argument '-Werror=...' not valid for ...` warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114980 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/115014] GCC generates incorrect instructions for addressing the data segment through EBP register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115014 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug target/115014] GCC generates incorrect instructions for addressing the data segment through EBP register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115014 --- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > int f(int *a) > { > int b; > size_t t = (size_t)&b; > size_t t1 = (size_t)a; > return *(int*)(((size_t)&b)+(t-t1)); > } > > Is kinda of valid c but might

[Bug middle-end/115037] Unused std::vector is not optimized away.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115037 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/109442] Dead local copy of std::vector not removed from function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18

[Bug middle-end/115037] Unused std::vector is not optimized away.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115037 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection |missed-optimization --- Comment #17 from Xi

[Bug target/115169] [14/15 regression] ICE in loongarch bootstrap with checking: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'const_int' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115169 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug target/115169] [14/15 regression] ICE in loongarch bootstrap with checking: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'const_int' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115169 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #21 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #19) > diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc > b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc > index e7835ae34ae..6a808cb0a5c 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc

[Bug target/115176] rbit pattern should use bitreverse rtl now

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115176 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug web/115183] GCCGO appears twice at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/14.1.0/

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115183 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug target/115169] [14/15 regression] ICE in loongarch bootstrap with checking: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'const_int' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115169 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/115333] -march=native sets --param "l2-cache-size=1024" on Ryzen 7 7800X3D

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115333 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- Maybe we should make it the L3 size like Intel but I'm not sure. See the reasoning in PR87444 comments.

[Bug tree-optimization/104165] [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds for unreachable code inlined from std::sort()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12 f

[Bug tree-optimization/104165] [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds for unreachable code inlined from std::sort()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- For anyone attempting to claim this not fixed for 13 or later please see PR107986 first.

[Bug middle-end/114532] gcc -fno-common option causes performance degradation on certain architectures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug middle-end/114532] gcc -fno-common option causes performance degradation on certain architectures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- Then will -fno-toplevel-reorder help?

[Bug middle-end/114532] gcc -fno-common option causes performance degradation on certain architectures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532 --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- Anyway if you really require a specific order of some data you need to either use -fno-toplevel-reorder, or group the data with a struct or linker script explicitly. Relying on any implicit behavior like -fcom

[Bug rtl-optimization/10837] noreturn attribute causes no sibling calling optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.d

[Bug c/111786] No tail recursion for simple program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111786 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --

[Bug c/111887] GCC: 14: A potential miscompilation with __builtin_inf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111887 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug target/111930] aarch64: SME is still not supported.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org Severit

[Bug ipa/106627] Exception from multiversion function cannot be caught

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106627 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug go/112286] Go does not support LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-30 Severity|normal

[Bug go/112286] Go does not support LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #1) > (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #0) > > Follow-up from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682#c2 > > > > libgo runtime needs an update. > > gccgo build

[Bug go/112286] Go does not support LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- FWIW one nice aspect of gccgo is we don't need a pre-installed Go binary to build it.

[Bug go/112286] Go does not support LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #4) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #1) > > > (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #0) > > > > Follow-up from https://gcc.gnu.

[Bug target/112299] [14 Regression] Cross compiling to loongarch64-linux-gnuf64 fails because "HAVE_AS_TLS was not declared" after r14-4925-g1b30ef7cea773e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112299 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at g

[Bug target/112299] [14 Regression] Cross compiling to loongarch64-linux-gnuf64 fails because "HAVE_AS_TLS was not declared" after r14-4925-g1b30ef7cea773e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112299 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/112330] New: [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 Bug ID: 112330 Summary: [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0) > I guess the easiest solution is raising the minimal GAS requirement of > bootstrapping GCC 14 on LoongArch to 2.42. Another solution might be default to -mno-relax if

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- Created attachment 56483 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56483&action=edit The generated assembly triggering the GAS internal error

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0) > > > > > I guess the easiest solution is raising the minimal GAS requirement of > >

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #5) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3) > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from com

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #7) > Uh, I also thought about this gcc and binutils matching issue when I > submitted r14-4674, but I didn't think about whether this should be solved? > How to fix it？ I'm

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: Bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 Regression] LoongArch: |[14 Regression] LoongArch:

[Bug c++/69549] Named Address Spaces does not compile in C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org Keywords

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: Bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao --- I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41 and get some better error message: t.s:98064: Error: Reloc overflow t.s:101127: Error: Reloc overflow t.s:101453: Error: Reloc overflo

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: Bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #12) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11) > > I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41 > > and get some better error message: > > > >

[Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: Outputted .align directive may trigger assembler error with GAS 2.41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|build | Summary|[14 Regression] LoongAr

[Bug target/112329] Faulty arithmetic comparison in O2, O3 of s390x-gcc with -march=z13

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112329 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org Summar

[Bug rtl-optimization/109035] meaningless memory store on RISC-V and LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug rtl-optimization/109035] meaningless memory store on RISC-V and LoongArch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug libfortran/112364] calloc used incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org Statu

[Bug libfortran/112364] calloc used incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #2) > I don't think this is correct. The requirement is "The pointer returned if > the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a > pointer t

[Bug libbacktrace/111315] libstdc++ stacktrace testsuite failures with --enable-default-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libfortran/112364] calloc used incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #4) > Interesting. But independently of alignment, the description of calloc makes > it clear that it allocates an array of nmemb objects of size x. So in any > case I th

[Bug target/111930] aarch64: SME should be supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #1) > We're aiming to add SME and SME2 support in GCC 14, hopefully by the end of > the year. Note that now we have only 2 weeks before GCC 14 stage 1 ends.

[Bug c/112442] Segfault from casting a ptr when using -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112442 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/112442] Segfault from casting a ptr when using -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112442 --- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao --- Note that in the "new bug" page, there is a red banner saying: Before reporting that GCC compiles your code incorrectly, compile it with gcc -Wall -Wextra and see whether this shows anything wrong with your cod

[Bug c/112442] Segfault from casting a ptr when using -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112442 --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Adam Andersson from comment #9) > I was sure I had tried -fno-strict-aliasing without any difference, but I > guessed I messed up somehow. Sorry about that. > > Still, is it not strange that -Wall

[Bug rtl-optimization/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org Keyword

[Bug c/110815] [static] not as useful as the nonnull attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110815 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug rtl-optimization/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-11 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn --- Comment #3

[Bug target/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|target Status|NEW

[Bug target/112483] New: [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Bug ID: 112483 Summary: [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/112484] New: [14 Regression] 26_numerics/random/{poisson_distribution,negative_binomial_distribution}/operators/values.cc fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112484 Bug ID: 112484 Summary: [14 Regression] 26_numerics/random/{poisson_distribution,negative_bino mial_distribution}/operators/values.cc fails on loongarch64-linux-gn

[Bug target/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug ipa/112486] GCC: 14: hangs with always_inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112486 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug ipa/112487] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: in setup_one_parameter, at tree-inline.cc:3565

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug target/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com Last recon

[Bug target/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR tree-optimization/109154 > * match.pd: Add new neg+abs rule, remove inverse copysign rule. I guess the inverse c

[Bug target/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- Minimized test case: ! { dg-do run } use, intrinsic :: ieee_arithmetic implicit none real :: sx1, sx2, sx3 double precision :: dx1, dx2, dx3 type(ieee_round_type) :: mode ! Test IEEE_COPY_SIGN

[Bug target/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- In 268r.cse1: (insn 26 25 27 2 (set (reg:SF 93) (mem/u/c:SF (reg/f:DI 94) [0 S4 A32])) "ieee_2.f90":13:6 discrim 4 146 {*movsf_hardfloat} (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_double:SF -1.0e+0 [-0x0.8p+1])

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruo

[Bug bootstrap/112497] New: Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 Bug ID: 112497 Summary: Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 S

[Bug bootstrap/112497] [14 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-12 Summary|Bootstrap com

[Bug bootstrap/112497] [14 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- FWIW, GCC configured with: --with-system-zlib --disable-fixincludes --enable-default-ssp --enable-default-pie --disable-werror --disable-multilib

[Bug bootstrap/112497] [14 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3) > If at all possible, cc Jin Ma in this since it's his change, I just reviewed > and committed the bits on Jin's behalf. I've replied the gcc-patch thread. It seems

[Bug bootstrap/112497] [14 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/112497] [14 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure: gcc/analyzer/constraint-manager.o differs on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 --- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7) > Yeah, that fold-rtx code is bogus. It's a latent bug. > > Optimizing copysign(x, -y) to neg(x) is just wrong. > > Will you be sending a patch Xi or do you want m

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- *** Bug 112484 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/112484] [14 Regression] 26_numerics/random/{poisson_distribution,negative_binomial_distribution}/operators/values.cc fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112484 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Component|target

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/112476] Unrecognizable insn with -O2 -march=la464 on loongarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112476 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #11 from Xi

[Bug rtl-optimization/112483] [14 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|xry111 at gcc dot gn

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >