[Bug testsuite/113005] 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_1.f90', 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_3.f90' execution test timeouts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005 --- Comment #13 from Lipeng Zhu --- OK, I think I find the root cause of this error, when thread number greater than 1000, the file_name = 1000_tst.dat, character(11) will overflow. This will generate the same file_name like ***_tst.dat. diff

[Bug tree-optimization/113131] `((A)^C)|B` should be simplified to `C | B`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113131 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-12-25

[Bug tree-optimization/113131] New: `((A)^C)|B` should be simplified to `C | B`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113131 Bug ID: 113131 Summary: `((A)^C)|B` should be simplified to `C | B` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

[Bug testsuite/113005] 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_1.f90', 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_3.f90' execution test timeouts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005 --- Comment #12 from Lipeng Zhu --- (In reply to Lipeng Zhu from comment #9) > Since I still can't reproduce the failure on my side :(, just curious, will > the new added 'rwlock' test cases failed on mutex lock? OK, I rerun these rwlock* test

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832 --- Comment #14 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59ecd5ff096f800de17b804f1482055f2d84d629 commit r14-6827-g59ecd5ff096f800de17b804f1482055f2d84d629 Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

[Bug testsuite/113005] 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_1.f90', 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_3.f90' execution test timeouts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005 --- Comment #11 from Lipeng Zhu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) >For what I can reproduce on my box (rwlock_1.exe built in the >x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite subdirectory using the -O0 >compilation line from

[Bug target/113087] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv vector: Runtime mismatch with rv64gc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087 --- Comment #26 from JuzheZhong --- CC Li Pan who may also reproduce the bugs for me. Plz give us more details how to reproduce the bugs since we don't see any bugs when build and run SPEC.

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #22 from YunQiang Su --- Any way, we should split the assert to another patch. I will try to find all the wrongly used TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P.

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #21 from YunQiang Su --- Sorry, Roger. Your patch is correct. I misunderstood it.

Re: ’ ] ' is displayed.

Thanks for the tip! 2023年12月24日(日) 23:35 Jonathan Wakely : > This mailing list is for automated emails from our bug database, not > for reporting bugs directly. > > See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for how to report bugs, thanks. > > >

[Bug middle-end/99930] Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in nontrivial code at -O2/3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|middle-end --- Comment #11 from Andrew

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #20 from YunQiang Su --- This patch has 2 problems: 1. We may need some more steps to add gcc_assert (outprec < inprec) Now, I met some ICE with it. 2. It doesn't solve the this problem: In combine.cc, jump_insn eats

[Bug middle-end/113130] New: `abs(a) == b` could be expanded as `(a == b || a == -b)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113130 Bug ID: 113130 Summary: `abs(a) == b` could be expanded as `(a == b || a == -b)` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug fortran/113128] Wrong implied-do with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113128 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug fortran/111837] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Out of bounds access with optimization inside io-implied-do-control

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111837 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gigor-ads at yandex dot ru --- Comment

[Bug fortran/113128] Wrong implied-do with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113128 Igor S Gerasimov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/113128] Wrong implied-do with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113128 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-12-24 Known to

[Bug c++/113129] "using declaration" not detected as "exported" in exported namespace (C++ modules)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113129 --- Comment #2 from Larry Smith --- @Andrew Thanks for the feedback. I don't work in Unix-like environments though normally (including Linux) so CMake, make, and shell commands are something I rarely work with (I specialize on Microsoft

[Bug c++/113129] "using declaration" not detected as "exported" in exported namespace (C++ modules)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113129 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-12-24 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/113129] New: "using declaration" not detected as "exported" in exported namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113129 Bug ID: 113129 Summary: "using declaration" not detected as "exported" in exported namespace Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/113128] New: Wrong implied-do with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113128 Bug ID: 113128 Summary: Wrong implied-do with optimizations Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #11 from andysem at mail dot ru --- > I'm not sure what you mean by "the compiler is free to generate code that > takes it into account." Takes what into account? What problem does that > freedom cause? I mean the compiler could

[Bug c++/113127] Unexpected error: '' was not declared 'constexpr'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113127 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #19 from Roger Sayle --- Created attachment 56930 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56930=edit proposed patch And now for a patch that does (or should) work. This even contains an optimization, we middle-end

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #10 from Peter Dimov --- Maybe the right thing to do is to use dynamic_cast only for virtual inheritance (either have a trait or check whether static_cast isn't a valid expression), otherwise static_cast, in both cases (standard and

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > (In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #7) > > You don't necessarily need dynamic_cast because facets are always installed > > and obtained by their exact

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #7) > You don't necessarily need dynamic_cast because facets are always installed > and obtained by their exact type, not via a reference to base. Is that true?

[Bug c++/111485] [11/12 Regression] Constraint mismatch on template template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111485 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84cab505d69038647d98f9340559fc941446e479 commit r11-11168-g84cab505d69038647d98f9340559fc941446e479 Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug c++/111485] [11/12 Regression] Constraint mismatch on template template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111485 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f24d6f0031fd515e6497c8c96446afd02aa4dbaa commit r12-10068-gf24d6f0031fd515e6497c8c96446afd02aa4dbaa Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #7 from Peter Dimov --- You don't necessarily need dynamic_cast because facets are always installed and obtained by their exact type, not via a reference to base. You can store the Facet* as given (like shared_ptr does), and return

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to andysem from comment #3) > I think, a failing dynamic_cast would not be useful as this would make > std::use_facet unusable with -fno-rtti. I don't see a problem with that. If you want to

[Bug libstdc++/113099] locale without RTTI uses dynamic_cast before gcc 13.2 or has ODR violation since gcc 13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- I'm not sure what you mean by "the compiler is free to generate code that takes it into account." Takes what into account? What problem does that freedom cause? The locale facet instantiations are

Re: ’ ] ' is displayed.

This mailing list is for automated emails from our bug database, not for reporting bugs directly. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for how to report bugs, thanks.

[Bug libstdc++/107761] Implement C++23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107761 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- OK that's great, thanks for clarifying. (I haven't looked at the impl on godbolt yet, sorry)

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #18 from Roger Sayle --- Please ignore comment #17, the above patch is completely bogus/broken.

[Bug rtl-optimization/104914] [MIPS] wrong comparison with scrabbled int value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 --- Comment #17 from Roger Sayle --- I think this patch might resolve the problem (or move it somewhere else): diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc index 9fef2bf6585..218bca905f5 100644 --- a/gcc/expr.cc +++ b/gcc/expr.cc @@ -6274,10 +6274,7

[Bug c++/113127] New: Unexpected error: '' was not declared 'constexpr'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113127 Bug ID: 113127 Summary: Unexpected error: '' was not declared 'constexpr' Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/113109] [14 Regression] g++ EH tests fail at execution time for cris-elf after r14-6674-g4759383245ac97

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109 --- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #9) > The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d03630b123411340e52d05124cb0cacfa1fc8b0 > > commit

[Bug tree-optimization/113126] [14 Regression] ICE: in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:325 at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113126 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/113126] [14 Regression] ICE: in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:325 at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113126 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/113126] New: [14 Regression] ICE: in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:325 at -O1

224094952-gbd901d76734-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 14.0.0 20231224 (experimental) (GCC)