https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #38 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #37)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #36)
>
> > For the curious, a particular hot spot for IPA in this area was:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109950
Bug ID: 109950
Summary: can array subscripts be assumed to be non-negative?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see the same test failing on trunk and the gcc 12 commit mentions it being a
backport. The test is not in gcc 13 currently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
Bug ID: 109949
Summary: new test case
experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in
r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.4.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109932
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-24
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109900
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed for GCC14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109900
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ede03e2d0437ea9c2f7453fcbe263505b4e0def
commit r14-1145-g1ede03e2d0437ea9c2f7453fcbe263505b4e0def
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect if we do something about:
# iftmp.0_8 = PHI <0(3), 1(4)>
_9 = (_Bool) iftmp.0_8;
First things might just work. Let me look into that. Plus there might be an
expand issue ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
Bug ID: 109948
Summary: ICE(segfault) in gfc_expression_rank() from
gfc_op_rank_conformable()
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105903
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The patch which fixes PR 89263 also fixes this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94898
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89263
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89263
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94898
Bug 94898 depends on bug 96923, which changed state.
Bug 96923 Summary: Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083
Bug 20083 depends on bug 96923, which changed state.
Bug 96923 Summary: Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105903
Bug 105903 depends on bug 96923, which changed state.
Bug 96923 Summary: Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 96923, which changed state.
Bug 96923 Summary: Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89263
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 96923 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
--- Comment #6 from Rory Bolt ---
Ah... that code makes so much sense now...
So my original comment about simply using a different constant was too
simplistic; what is being attempted is to shift the constant 1 into the correct
byte position
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109947
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
To be clear, a move-only value type is OK. A move-only error type is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109947
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Seemann from comment #0)
> GCC13 introduce monadic operations for `std::expected`, including r-value
> ref-qualified overloads, which suggests that it should be possible to use an
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
--- Comment #5 from Patrick O'Neill ---
I don't have a big-endian environment set up to validate the issue/test a fix
and I likely won't be able to get to this for a while.
The relevant code is here (untouched by the recent patches):
Trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 55146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55146=edit
patch that resolves it for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Sorry about the nonsense comment, I clicked enter too early. I'm taking a look
at this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at rivosinc dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #37 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #36)
> For the curious, a particular hot spot for IPA in this area was:
>
> ipcp_vr_lattice::meet_with_1 (const value_range *other_vr)
> {
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104350
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109450
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42d1612eb5c3b2ee327bc3336bfcbc43a0d0fc5b
commit r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2ee327bc3336bfcbc43a0d0fc5b
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106465
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
commit r14-1142-gf9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108423
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
commit r14-1142-gf9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70418
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
commit r14-1142-gf9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107557
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
commit r14-1142-gf9b5be322358ee63798e02a9103b6bbe459e7aea
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #11 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #7)
> > // https://godbolt.org/z/Ea43Y65z4
> > struct Widget {
> > int i = 1;
> ...
> > In this case, Widget has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
The patch in comment 11 is just a related spot improvement.
The PR itself is still unfixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109940
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109947
Bug ID: 109947
Summary: std::expected monadic operations do not support
move-only error types yet
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #33)
> Created attachment 55142 [details]
> Disable dynamic shift instructions patch
First of all, thanks for digging into this. This issue has been a can of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Schwab ---
TASK_SIZE is 0xF000UL on m68k.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #14 from Stan Johnson ---
I can try to capture the offending "cc1plus" and "as" processes just before the
compilation of gimple-match.cc fails in stage2; the output will look something
like this (for a different cc1plus process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 23.05.2023 um 19:44 schrieb userm57 at yahoo dot com
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
>
> --- Comment #12 from Stan Johnson ---
>> That’s indeed unhelpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #26 from Adam Wozniak ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #10)
> > It is a valid preprocessing token ("non-whitespace character that cannot be
> > one of the above").
>
> Ah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #7)
> But does w go out of the scope at the end of make2? Similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #7)
> > // https://godbolt.org/z/Ea43Y65z4
> > struct Widget {
> > int i = 1;
> ...
> > In this case, Widget has no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #7)
> // https://godbolt.org/z/Ea43Y65z4
> struct Widget {
> int i = 1;
...
> In this case, Widget has no constructors,
No, it has a constructor because of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #7 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Richard Biener wrote:
> Are we using the wrong check or is escaping 'this'
> for these kind of classes invoking undefined behavior?
Wow, this got a lot of traffic quickly! Sounds like you (Richard,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Older versions of C++ - up to C++20 - would reject such characters (not
allowed in identifiers based on the list of allowed characters in that
standard version) even when not converted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 23.05.2023 um 19:28 schrieb userm57 at yahoo dot com
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
>
> --- Comment #10 from Stan Johnson ---
>> The question is how much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107004
--- Comment #5 from Rogério de Souza Moraes ---
I tried to apply the patch r13-3596-ge7310e24b1c0ca67, but it has not fixed the
issue. Although, the issue is not reproducible on GCC 13.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #10 from Stan Johnson ---
> The question is how much virtual memory is exposed to a user
> process, that is - how large is the address space?
I'm not sure, but I see this:
$ prlimit
RESOURCE DESCRIPTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #24 from Adam Wozniak ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #23)
> (In reply to Adam Wozniak from comment #20)
> > i get this response:
> >
> > This page contains the following errors:
> > error on line 20 at column 54:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97720
--- Comment #6 from m101010a at gmail dot com ---
> represent the second case in the action table as an empty exception
> specification like C++98 throw()
That will deal with this issue and PR88218, but won't solve PR55918 since using
throw()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] SLP |[12/13 Regression] SLP cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109747
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6b8870ec585947a03a797f9037d02380316e235
commit r14-1139-gb6b8870ec585947a03a797f9037d02380316e235
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 23 May 2023, userm57 at yahoo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
>
> --- Comment #8 from Stan Johnson ---
> > How much virtual memory does the m68k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note here is a testcase which fails even with C++98 (basically changing the
default assignment in the class to the ctor):
```
struct Widget {
Widget();
int i;
int a[4];
};
Widget *global = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It seems a copy CTOR or DTOR is required to make it TREE_ADDRESSABLE. So
adding either
~Widget();
or
Widget(const Widget&);
to the Widget class declaration fixes the testcase. Are we using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
If you really want to you can port the LoongArch changes back to 1.18. I don't
think that would be too hard--it's mostly a matter of adding build tags in
various places. But it's up to you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note to make it fail at -O2 and above is simple just add [[gnu::noipa]] to make
definition like this:
[[gnu::noipa]]
Widget make() { return Widget(); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
> trunk or the backport? I tested trunk on gcc185. Will check.
That's on trunk (didn't check on the branch)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #8 from Stan Johnson ---
> How much virtual memory does the m68k host have?
Swap space in the m68k virt VM is configurable; I'm using 1 GiB in two 512 MiB
partitions. I noticed that compilation goes further with two 512 MiB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109886
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> > > If irange::supports_p (TREE_TYPE (arg)) is true, we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The fix for PR40389, r0-94078-g4d61856d0a221c, changed this to look at type
addressability (from LHS addressability).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109944
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f504b70eb0fc1339322960041a85606df4547897
commit r14-1137-gf504b70eb0fc1339322960041a85606df4547897
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108752
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d5034aad9868bed45472ef5bfac22dd9ac0e0cb
commit r14-1136-g9d5034aad9868bed45472ef5bfac22dd9ac0e0cb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Adam Wozniak from comment #20)
> i get this response:
>
> This page contains the following errors:
> error on line 20 at column 54: AttValue: " or ' expected
> Below is a rendering of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #22 from Adam Wozniak ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #10)
> > It is a valid preprocessing token ("non-whitespace character that cannot be
> > one of the above").
>
> Ah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #21 from Adam Wozniak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> It is funny arguing with folks who write parts of GCC on an idea of
> integrated vs seperate preprocessor really.
yeah, i've been pounding out C since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Th(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4)
> The new testcase fails on arm and aarch64.
trunk or the backport? I tested trunk on gcc185. Will check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #20 from Adam Wozniak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> (In reply to Adam Wozniak from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > > Bisection points to r10-3309-g7d112d6670a0e0e662
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109927
--- Comment #6 from Stan Johnson ---
Thanks, let me know if you need me to check anything here.
The problem has existed since at least gcc-12. Initially I thought the QEMU
q800 VM had run out of memory, but switching to a virt VM with ~3 GB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109946
Bug ID: 109946
Summary: linker error undefined reference to `vtable for
std::bad_expected_access'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98874
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
Bug ID: 109945
Summary: Escape analysis hates copy elision: different result
with -O1 vs -O2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109944
Bug ID: 109944
Summary: vector CTOR with byte elements and SSE2 has STLF fail
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60441
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ignore that, it doesn't work. Due to the way we've implemented the mersenne
twister state, we really do need to remember how much of the state has been
used already, which is why we serialize the _M_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109942
Simon Pfahler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109942
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can add [[gnu::noinline]] to the function template if you really want to
prevent it from being inlined, but it won't prevent it being instantiated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109941
--- Comment #4 from Roy Jacobson ---
The linked bug is about nodiscard applied to the class together with ignoring
temporary objects. But GCC will when the type is the return value or when the
nodiscard is applied to the constructor:
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109942
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's debatable whether GCC's behaviour is incorrect. The definition of
the function template can be seen, and no explicit specialization has been
declared for foo, so the compiler is allowed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109943
Bug ID: 109943
Summary: [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when
using __builtin_unreachable since
r13-6834-g41ade3399bd
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109941
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109941
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||85973
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
Mike, can we marked this as FIXED now? ...or are there other changes needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109934
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109934
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d5f050dabbf6dd3b992c3b46661848dbcf30d9e
commit r14-1133-g8d5f050dabbf6dd3b992c3b46661848dbcf30d9e
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108724
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk we're back to vectorizing but as intended with DImode which makes us
save half of the loads and stores and we think the extended required arithmetic
covers up for that (by quite some margin).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109941
--- Comment #2 from Roy Jacobson ---
Right, libc++ do that as well since 2019 -
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65900?id=213975.
Although with the RAII classes I think you need to [[nodiscard]] the
constructor which I think (?) is a compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109942
Bug ID: 109942
Summary: Function template declared extern is implicitly
instantiated on -O optimization level when return type
is auto
Product: gcc
Version:
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
