https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101157
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|stack_limit_rtx is created |[12 Regression]
|too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101157
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just those particular TLS UNSPECs. And, e.g. UNSPEC_NTPOFF should be fine in
any insn that takes memory operands...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Known to work|10.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103276
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #0)
> Here hostaddrs[1] points to a spurious variable in current stack frame.
>
> Gimple code seems to be correct
> voidD.27 copyin_simple (struct simple & restrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98956
Navid Rahimi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navidrahimi at microsoft dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86136
Navid Rahimi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navidrahimi at microsoft dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103297
Bug ID: 103297
Summary: GCC cannot detect out of bounds in constexpr context.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51805|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> vmovd have same issue, for simplify should we disable 32bit load for
> sse/mask register when memory_operand has PIC address.
Please disable specific UNSPEC operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 103026, which changed state.
Bug 103026 Summary: Implement warning for Unicode bidi override characters
[CVE-2021-42574]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103026
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103026
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103026
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51c500269bf53749b107807d84271385fad35628
commit r12-5331-g51c500269bf53749b107807d84271385fad35628
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
vmovd have same issue, for simplify should we disable 32bit load for sse/mask
register when memory_operand has PIC address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103296
--- Comment #1 from jojo ---
My patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584589.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103296
Bug ID: 103296
Summary: Select satisfied register for deleting noop move
instruction.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102695
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102695
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:111fd515f2894d7cddf62f80c69765c43ae18577
commit r12-5330-g111fd515f2894d7cddf62f80c69765c43ae18577
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102779
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a80d4e098b10d5cd161f55e4fce64a6be9683ed3
commit r12-5329-ga80d4e098b10d5cd161f55e4fce64a6be9683ed3
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103270
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So you say this is a problem with loop header copying, that would mean the
> issue is really latent and general, no? Header copying uses
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103292
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This could be an unimplemented feature in clang with respect to C++23 by the
> way.
The problem is that it has a silent undefined behavior in the code, the string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #21)
> Jakub: I see it is about error attributed call in the split out part of
> function. Then we really want to prevent the split. Keeping track of those
> should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This could be an unimplemented feature in clang with respect to C++23 by the
> way.
Same code works with clang --target=x86_64-windows-msvc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102929
Navid Rahimi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navidrahimi at microsoft dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This could be an unimplemented feature in clang with respect to C++23 by the
way.
In file included from
> /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-2026/include/c++/12.0.0/string:53,
> from :2:
> /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-2026/include/c++/12.0.0/bits/
> basic_string.h:535:7: note: 'std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits,
> _Alloc>::basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
*** Bug 103294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103294
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
const _Alloc&) [with = std::allocator;
_CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits; _Alloc =
std::allocator]'
7 | std::string str2{"abcwe"};
| ^
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-2026/include/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103246
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c693978dd64b16637577ebf50c760053d7d2165
commit r12-5328-g8c693978dd64b16637577ebf50c760053d7d2165
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Martin clearly prefers some other fix, so I'll let him fix it himself.
I think I just misread your change. It doesn't cause the problem I was
concerned about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103248
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Division by zero is undefined behavior for fixed-point types the same way
as it is for integer types (but not floating point, at least when
infinities and NaN are supported). Treating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unlvsur at live dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
Bug ID: 103295
Summary: constexpr std::string does not work for clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103294
Bug ID: 103294
Summary: constexpr std::string does not work for clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51819=edit
Patch which is in testing
Patch is now in full testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #6 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
Working around this now downstream via
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=876602ee223c6c4225371b428a346f0b2d7f2020
which we'll revert whenever an upstream fix is available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I still need to test it a little bit.
I get no failures in tree-ssa.exp. Running a full bootstrap/test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
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=103278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103032
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
I haven't yet reproduced the precise symptoms you reported, but FWIW I'm seeing
this in got_gsd, which looks like a true warning for this code:
| 1903 | psects[psectid] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103293
Bug ID: 103293
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-3.c fails
after r12-5301
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Before phiopt, we have:
> if (func_14_uli_8.0_1 != 0)
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[local count: 805306369]:
> _11 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103292
Bug ID: 103292
Summary: [12 regression] xorg-server-1.20.13
-Werror=array-bounds false positive on unions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103246
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks for reducing the testcase.
I found the reason for build difference. There is misplaced code clearing
to_info_lto.
hubicka@lomikamen-jh:/aux/hubicka/trunk-git/build4/gcc$ cat ~/fix
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102740
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11/12 Regression] #pragma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
For me it was working at r12-5290-g074ee8d9a91d7 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Summary|gcc 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
Bug ID: 103291
Summary: gcc 11 regression with #pragma GCC visibility vs
extern inside C++ functions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103290
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sorry it is a dup of bug 102740. Both are similar issues.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 102740 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at gnu dot org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103290
Bug ID: 103290
Summary: gcc 11 regression with C++ designated initializers,
unions, anonymous struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
--- Comment #4 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
With the setup in Comment 3, now I can also include `` in the GMF of a
module. I don't think this worked last week. Though all I'm doing in the module
is specializing a my-library type trait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Most likely caused by r12-5300-gf98f373dd822b35c .
Strange. That git commit doesn't seem to be in the range of
git hashes I specified.
The one commit that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be
int ui_5;
long func_14_uli_8;
void func_14() {
ui_5 &= (func_14_uli_8 ? 60 : ui_5) ? 5 : 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice during GIMPLE pass: |[12 Regression] ice during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103289
Bug ID: 103289
Summary: OpenMP: Private Allocatable arrays not allowed inside
'parallel' with default(none)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Bug ID: 103288
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: phiopt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102695
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The only thing which PHIOPT does is change:
> if (c_15 == 0)
> goto ; [INV]
> else
> goto ; [INV]
>
>:
>
>:
> # iftmp.1_10 = PHI <0(4),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #42 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51816
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51816=edit
patch after today's update to configure
add a patch for today's update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103246
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
I isolated small reproducer:
$ cat 1.f
SUBROUTINE DENDD1(B,L2)
IF(CITYPIPSI.EQ.1) CALL VADD(A1DB1DA,1,L2)
END
$ cat 2.f
LOGICAL BSFDD
L2 = 2
CALL DENDD1(X0X0,L2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/12 Regression] Dead Code |[9/10/12 Regression] Dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Mikael Morin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92e549683e1f46ba419e40b12928dc8afe5dc967
commit r11-9243-g92e549683e1f46ba419e40b12928dc8afe5dc967
Author: Mikael Morin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103263
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Likely a duplicate / variant of the old constructor bug for [array].
We have tons of these.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103286
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102981
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
*** Bug 103280 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103280
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103287
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103286
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b3c9932338650c9a402cf1bfbdf7dfc03e185e7
commit r12-5322-g3b3c9932338650c9a402cf1bfbdf7dfc03e185e7
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103287
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-16
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103286
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
