https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Add -save-temps and attach the resulting .i (or .ii) file.
This is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ under the section of `What we
need `.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Add -save-temps and attach the resulting .i (or .ii) file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note C99 has the same table:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf
C++11 has the same table too:
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n3337/lex.icon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|translation |c
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689
Bug ID: 111689
Summary: Unexpected comparison result of signed long long
literal with zero
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Bug ID: 111688
Summary: [14 regression] bootstrap failure after
r14-4383-g14d0c509898b03
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #4 from Hanke Zhang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Oh I see the compiler you are testing with defaults with fortify turned on.
> That is the difference.
> Maybe also with pie turned on by default tlalso.
>
> Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh I see the compiler you are testing with defaults with fortify turned on.
That is the difference.
Maybe also with pie turned on by default tlalso.
Can you provide the full output of gcc -v and also the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #2 from Hanke Zhang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I cannot reproduce this on the trunk (or even in 12.3.0):
>
> Split point at BB 3
> header time: 1393.311190 header size: 33
> split time: 2.226400 split
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> make sense. It should be just rewritten as
I mean, the code does not make sense.
And the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to King Lok Chung from comment #8)
> It also looks like to me that the compiler is trying to be smart and save
> one register use by reusing the SP, resulting in two SP offsets. In reality,
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #8 from King Lok Chung ---
It also looks like to me that the compiler is trying to be smart and save one
register use by reusing the SP, resulting in two SP offsets. In reality, it
could have used a6 or a7 easily.
Or might be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Missing fixit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think most other targets create the stack offset in a register and then
do the add to the sp rather than having 2 add to sp which might be the reason
why this has not been seen until now too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/CFI-directives.html#g_t_002ecfi_005fdef_005fcfa_005foffset-offset
I think you are reading the dwarf standard incorrectly.
It is the second cfi_def_cfa_offset is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
MIPS64 does:
```
daddiu $sp,$sp,-2080
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 2080
daddu $2,$7,$6
sd $16,2056($sp)
sd $17,2064($sp)
sb $0,0($2)
li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56044
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56044=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56043
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56043=edit
testcase
`-g0 -O3 -Wall -Wno-unused-label -fno-reorder-blocks -march=rv64imafd`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/d9375e490072d1aae73a93949aa158fcd2a27018/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h#L1814
is exactly where a temp copy is created. Is that valid for std::sort, I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.mail-archive.com/cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org/msg361472.html
is the patch which broke clang.
Report it to them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687
Bug ID: 111687
Summary: libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
With -fsanitize=address we get this at runtime:
```
=
==1==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fc69190003c
at pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I've had a quick look at the linux-6.6-rc4 kernel code
and found about a dozen examples of this problem, so there
would be some customers for a solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111686
Bug ID: 111686
Summary: [13 regression] excess errors in
23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc after
r13-7931-ge6d26b141bf03a
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Kyle Knoepfel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #3 from Kyle Knoepfel ---
@Andrew Pinski, yes I surmised as much. My difficulty, though, is in
understanding if this is the correct behavior according to the standard's
specification of std::sort, which presumably is reasonably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
IIRC this happens if the cmp is defined incorrectly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Bug ID: 111685
Summary: Segfault while sorting on array element address
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|enhancement: gcc doesn't|enhancement: gcc doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674
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=111684
Bug ID: 111684
Summary: enhancement: gcc doesn't detect pointless tests
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
Bug ID: 111683
Summary: Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1be18ea110a2d69570dbc494588a7c73173883be
commit r14-4382-g1be18ea110a2d69570dbc494588a7c73173883be
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d0c509898b0361f78284c05556035edde6d1e0
commit r14-4383-g14d0c509898b0361f78284c05556035edde6d1e0
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111682
Bug ID: 111682
Summary: valgrind error in tsubst_template_decl
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot reproduce this on the trunk (or even in 12.3.0):
Split point at BB 3
header time: 1393.311190 header size: 33
split time: 2.226400 split size: 2
bbs: 3
SSA names to pass:
Refused: split
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111681
Bug ID: 111681
Summary: Missing fixit for exception name in catch
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680
Bug ID: 111680
Summary: DWARF information inconstant with the generated RISC-V
Binary
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679
Bug ID: 111679
Summary: `(~a) | (a ^ b)` is not simplified to `~(a & b)`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f85947338197b12b77aa5eb0eb2d1b4ea7dbdd54
commit r12-9908-gf85947338197b12b77aa5eb0eb2d1b4ea7dbdd54
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #14 from Kito Cheng ---
Some info for generated files:
-
File blankcomment code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 56040
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56040=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678
Bug ID: 111678
Summary: ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Bug ID: 111677
Summary: arm64 build fails unrecognizable insn [REGRESSION]
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111235
--- Comment #4 from Luke Geeson ---
Hi there,
Apologies here you go:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/65106
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111589
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > src/c++98/ios_init.cc: __gnu_cxx::__atomic_add_dispatch(&_S_refcount, 1);
>
> I think there's a race here, independent of the ordering used for this
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111620
--- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
with 110036 (CHECK failed) issue is fixed, but Even after patch ASAN unable to
detect corruption like "Use_after_free(heap)","Heap buffer overflow","Stack
buffer overflow" and "Use after scope"
some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3)
> Created attachment 56037 [details]
> Untested fix
>
> The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end up creating
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 56037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56037=edit
Untested fix
The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end up creating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111676
Bug ID: 111676
Summary: Race condition in std::ios::Init
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675
Bug ID: 111675
Summary: Incorrect parameter value passed when attempting to
pass a field of a packed record as a parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674
Bug ID: 111674
Summary: [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable
subobject of a non-finalizable type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673
Bug ID: 111673
Summary: assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore
costs of callee save registers with basic block
frequency
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
Bug ID: 111672
Summary: Inappropriate function splitting during
pass_split_functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, for the a ? -1 : 0 case (and similarly for a ? 0 : -1) we have 3 distinct
cases.
One is signed 1-bit precision type, for which we jump through the unnecessary
hops of
trying to optimize e.g. the first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111566
Jeremy Bennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111548
Jeremy Bennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111671
Bug ID: 111671
Summary: ICE in get_default_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.cc:312
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111670
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111670
Bug ID: 111670
Summary: H8/300 SX uses incorrect code sequences
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
80 matches
Mail list logo