https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110919
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
For -O1 we have:
_24 = c_16 == 0;
_6 = (int) _24;
_2 = (short int) _24;
_3 = (int) _24;
_5 = e;
_20 = _3 == _5;
_21 = c_16 != 0;
_22 = _20 & _21;
((c_16 == 0) == _5) & (c_16 != 0)
((!b) ? 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #3 from Frank Heckenbach ---
Thanks for the additional info. I still think it would be useful if the message
told me that, rather than you. ;)
- 'nonnull' is a GCC attribute, and quoting it makes it look like it refers to
that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>- There is no "nonnull" in the code.
It is nonnull since it is a reference. References cannot pointer to null
values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>- There is no comparison (to NULL or anything else for that matter) in the
>code.
Actually there is because there is a conversion to bool happening ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
Bug ID: 111281
Summary: unhelpful warning output ('nonnull' argument 'v'
compared to NULL)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
Thorsten Otto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ad...@tho-otto.de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96703
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm for
```
#define cst 0x1234
bool f(int x, int y)
{
return x > y && y == cst;
}
bool f0(int x, int y)
{
return x > cst && y == cst;
}
```
currently for GCC on aarch64:
```
f:
cmp w0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The pattern:
> /* X - Y < X is the same as Y > 0 when there is no overflow.
>For equality, this is also true with wrapping overflow. */
> (for op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The pattern:
/* X - Y < X is the same as Y > 0 when there is no overflow.
For equality, this is also true with wrapping overflow. */
(for op (simple_comparison)
(simplify
(op:c @0 (minus@2 @0 @1))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
wait that is for unsigned types and we don't have an unsigned type here ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The comment says:
/* To detect overflow in unsigned A - B, A < B is simpler than A - B > A.
However, the detection logic for SUB_OVERFLOW in tree-ssa-math-opts.cc
expects the long form, so we restrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aceceb1e2d6e86ce183c8cc448750fa03b6f79e
commit r14-3644-g1aceceb1e2d6e86ce183c8cc448750fa03b6f79e
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe during final_value_replacement_loop we should create a new BB for the
COND_EXPR instead of creating GIMPLE_COND ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56003
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Bug ID: 111280
Summary: CLZ(0) generated when CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is
false
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
sjlj-exceptions is very much not tested as much as the others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
Bug ID: 111279
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault with m68k,SJLJ and -malign-int
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95034
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||patch
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55836=edit
reduced.i
Clang seems to fail to build this reduced one with -O0 too, although -O1/-Og
are ok there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82738
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
10/11/12/13/14 all seem to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Bug ID: 111278
Summary: error: call to ‘...’ declared with attribute error:
code path is reachable with -Og, but not -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111277
Bug ID: 111277
Summary: braced-init-list allowed in a template-argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57905
Jan Schultke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janschultke at googlemail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Preliminary patch:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/write.c b/libgfortran/io/write.c
index 5d47a6d25f7..aafbd96b65a 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/write.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/write.c
@@ -1784,8 +1784,6 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont ---
This is because you are facing the PR65762 issue. I just attached a path
proposal to it that you need to apply too to be able to run your test. You'll
be even able to simply use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65762
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 55834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55834=edit
Patch proposal
Here is a proposal that I'll submit on libstdc++ mailing list once PR83077 is
fixed. Note that in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111273
--- Comment #2 from J Grossman ---
@Jonathan whether it's a warning or an error, it's incorrect. I'm filling a 1
element array with 1 element and it's saying it's out of bounds. That's a bug.
I would like to use -Warray-bounds to catch coding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111043
Zhendong Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I suspect this is basically the same issue as PR 67628.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55833=edit
Patch which I am testing
42 matches
Mail list logo
