https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98399
Bug 98399 depends on bug 98434, which changed state.
Bug 98434 Summary: [AVX512] Missing expander for vashl,
vlshr, vashr{v32hi,v16hi,v4di,v8di}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98434
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98375
Bug 98375 depends on bug 98434, which changed state.
Bug 98434 Summary: [AVX512] Missing expander for vashl,
vlshr, vashr{v32hi,v16hi,v4di,v8di}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98434
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98434
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101187
Bug ID: 101187
Summary: enhancement for vector shift with constant bigger than
element precision
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98434
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bd86940c428de9dde53e41265fb1435ed236f5e
commit r12-1764-g3bd86940c428de9dde53e41265fb1435ed236f5e
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101186
Bug ID: 101186
Summary: predictable comparison of integer variables not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #18 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #14)
> > The problem sees due to some problem of LTO.
>
> So I if understand correctly this binutils patch is fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #17 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Are you sure about the .. in one of the zdebug section names?
It is a typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Alloc order is just another kind of cost which can be compensated by
> increasing cost of mask->integer and integer->mask.
>
> With below patch , pr96814 wouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So we're exchanging the inner two loops
>
> a[1][3] = 8;
> for (int b = 1; b <= 5; b++)
> for (int d = 0; d <= 5; d++)
> for (c = 0; c <= 5; c++)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
About longteam part, i'm working slowly on that, it's in PR98478.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Alloc order is just another kind of cost which can be compensated by increasing
cost of mask->integer and integer->mask.
With below patch , pr96814 wouldn't generate any mask intructions execept for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
Bug ID: 101185
Summary: pr96814 failed after r12-1669 on non-avx512 platform
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #30 from Rich Felker ---
This is a critical codegen issue. Is it really still not fixed in 9.4.0?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now applied to GCC 11 too. The other two patches referenced in this issue were
put on mainline before GCC 11 branched and not on GCC 10 or any older branch,
so I think I'm done here and the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a2bbc08d9e5e4837d33afbb8c8347a182223a43
commit r11-8648-g1a2bbc08d9e5e4837d33afbb8c8347a182223a43
Author: Sandra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> I also noticed that factor_out_conditional_conversion has a similar issue
> where the cast is inside both if and else part.
I have a fix for that, though we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101184
Bug ID: 101184
Summary: [modules] ICE and unexpected behavior when using
precisely 5 stl-memory includes.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101183
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2)
> https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/master/mingw-w64-gcc/0010-Fix-
> using-large-PCH.patch
> But why not add these patches to GCC itself?
You have to ask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101183
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup of bug 91440.
>
> https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/issues/5719
>
> So you have to manually setdllcharacteristics on cc1.exe and cc1plus.exe
>
> ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101182
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
Next patch series can be found here which removes abs_replacement:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573558.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91440
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unlvsur at live dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101183
Bug ID: 101183
Summary: gcc mingw for precompiled header file.
MapViewOfFileEx: Attempt to access invalid address.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101174
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101174
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7da4eae3dcef6fd5d955eb2c80c453aa52368004
commit r12-1762-g7da4eae3dcef6fd5d955eb2c80c453aa52368004
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101182
Bug ID: 101182
Summary: [concepts] ICE with ++ in non-template
requires-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Only the last one produces the best code.
So for clang, f1-f3 produces the same code but f4 is bad.
It was only fixed in clang 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #21 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #20)
> For example, if an inlining pass happens after instrumentation, then the
> function attribute doesn't necessarily need to suppress inlining. After
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #13)
> It is not visible in combine due to the constant data is in *.LC0 and
combine can see things in the constant pool in various ways though (just
like many other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Changing the warning text from "does X" to "may do X" wouldn't help because all
instances of it (or all warnings) would have to use the latter form, and that's
already implied by the former. Every GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #20 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Marco Elver from comment #19)
I am ok with "inlining suppression" as an implementation strategy and I agree
that it should be useful. What I objected strongly is "promised inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #19 from Marco Elver ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #18)
[...]
> Our problem is that a boolean attribute with 1 bit information cannot
> express whether a neg attribute function can be inlined into a pos attribute
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100328
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
> Created attachment 50715 [details]
> ira:consider matching cstr in all alternatives
>
> With little understanding on ira, I am not quite sure this patch is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e99256fc5eab1cf8958223d79b23e359b6d5ca60
commit r11-8644-ge99256fc5eab1cf8958223d79b23e359b6d5ca60
Author: Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
But here are two other functions which all should have the same code gen as the
original two:
int f3(int y)
{
const bool x = y % 100 == 0;
return (x ? y%16 : y%4) == 0;
}
int f4(int y)
{
const
gcc trunk version
(Homebrew GCC HEAD-da13e4e_1) 12.0.0 20210623 (experimental)
template< class T
, bool = requires { typename T::pointer; }
>
struct p { using type = void; };
template< class T >
struct p { using type = T::pointer; };
template< class T > using P =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
the ?: one seems to produce better code currently though, so I'm not sure
transforming it to the shift is what we want.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #18 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #15)
> (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #14)
> > Can a no_profile_instrument_function function be inlined into a function
> > without the attribute? This may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101174
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 101014, which changed state.
Bug 101014 Summary: [12 Regression] Big compile time hog with -O3 since
r12-1268-g9858cd1a6827ee7a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101014
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101014
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101148
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101014
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a03e944e92ee51ae583382079d4739b64bd93b35
commit r12-1750-ga03e944e92ee51ae583382079d4739b64bd93b35
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101148
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a03e944e92ee51ae583382079d4739b64bd93b35
commit r12-1750-ga03e944e92ee51ae583382079d4739b64bd93b35
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #58 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37e93925366676201b526624e9f8dc32d82b4ff2
commit r12-1746-g37e93925366676201b526624e9f8dc32d82b4ff2
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On IRC Richi said: "VRP has code to do that but maybe for some reason shifts
are not handled"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94084
vfdff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:371c1992624c9269e2d5747561a8b27b30e485ee
commit r12-1745-g371c1992624c9269e2d5747561a8b27b30e485ee
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101167
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f50a222dffb448ef5c69a64b6945acafc6b16e12
commit r11-8643-gf50a222dffb448ef5c69a64b6945acafc6b16e12
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6e4453172e6502318d31517b7d3771b157ae71a
commit r11-8642-gb6e4453172e6502318d31517b7d3771b157ae71a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-23
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
Bug ID: 101180
Summary: [12 Regression] Rejected code since
r12-299-ga0fdff3cf33f7284
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86439
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3eecc1db4c691a87ef4a229d059aa863066d9a1c
commit r12-1744-g3eecc1db4c691a87ef4a229d059aa863066d9a1c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101171
--- Comment #3 from John X ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is your GCC 11 compiler checking-enabled? I doubt it is a regression.
gcc 11 build command:
```
configure --prefix=install_path --enable-languages=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
All right, similarly to sanitizer flags, I sent a patch that prevent inlining
when -fprofile-generate is used:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573511.html
Note that one typically uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
Bug ID: 101179
Summary: y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce
different code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e16f2b472c7d253d564556a048dc4ae16119c00
commit r12-1743-g1e16f2b472c7d253d564556a048dc4ae16119c00
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
In our fork of gcc we go from "xpulpv0" to "xpulpv3".
Technically, the versioning was not done 100% correctly (since
some changes didn't require a major version bump) but either way
I hit this issue when porting our patches to a newer gcc.
Currently, I work around it with an additional check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101170
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
struct S s;
__builtin_va_list ap;
int i;
long long l;
struct S { int a; int b[]; };
struct S
foo (int x)
{
struct S a = {};
do
if (x)
return a;
while (1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101178
Bug ID: 101178
Summary: SLP permute propagation doesn't handle VEC_PERM
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101105
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51055=edit
patch
So like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101105
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101105
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So what happens is that vect_compile_time_alias fails to perform the offset
adjustment for the negative step DR
#(Data Ref:
# bb: 3
# stmt: b[g_40][0] = 0;
# ref: b[g_40][0];
# base_object: b;
#
The gcc-bugs mailing list is for automated mails from our Bugzilla
database. Bug reports should be entered into Bugzilla, and discussions
should happen in Bugzilla or on a more apppropriate mailing list
(because most GCC devs do not routinely read the gcc-bugs mails).
Hi Robert:
My assumption is the version should never be 0.0, at least 0.1, so it
is treated as 2p0,
but I didn't check if the input is really 0p0 or 0, that's kind of bug
we need to fix.
And I am not familiar with PULP stuff, does it mean PULP really uses
version 0.0,
and intend to implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51054=edit
gcc12-pr101172.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
Victor Burckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||victor.burckel at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
--- Comment #4 from Victor Burckel ---
I'm also seeing the same behavior, destructor of lambda captures seems to get
called twice
https://godbolt.org/z/zxnhM3x47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Iru Cai from comment #0)
> > > Built with '-march=x86-64-v3 -O1', the following code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> (In reply to Iru Cai from comment #0)
> > Built with '-march=x86-64-v3 -O1', the following code generates a bsr
> > instruction, which has undefined behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Iru Cai from comment #0)
> Built with '-march=x86-64-v3 -O1', the following code generates a bsr
> instruction, which has undefined behavior when the source operand is zero,
> thus gives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure about the .. in one of the zdebug section names?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
--- Comment #4 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Waiting two weeks before backporting to gcc-11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da13e4ebebb07a47d5fb50eab8893f8fe38683df
commit r12-1741-gda13e4ebebb07a47d5fb50eab8893f8fe38683df
Author: Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101167
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:679506c3830ea1a93c755413609bfac3538e2cbd
commit r12-1740-g679506c3830ea1a93c755413609bfac3538e2cbd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #14)
> The problem sees due to some problem of LTO.
So I if understand correctly this binutils patch is fixes the issue? If so
please close this bug as moved and open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51053=edit
patch
For reference this is the patch that completed bootstrap & regtest on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101171
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #14 from YunQiang Su ---
The problem sees due to some problem of LTO.
Index: binutils-2.36.50.20210618/bfd/elfxx-mips.c
===
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101175
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So we're exchanging the inner two loops
a[1][3] = 8;
for (int b = 1; b <= 5; b++)
for (int d = 0; d <= 5; d++)
for (c = 0; c <= 5; c++)
a[b][c] = a[b][c + 2] & 216;
to
a[1][3] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
Bug ID: 101177
Summary: sh3: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101176
Bug ID: 101176
Summary: valgrind error for
c-c++-common/builtin-has-attribute.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regression] ICE |ICE Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
