https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #12)
> OK. It seems it has data dependency issue:
>
> missed: not vectorized, possible dependence between data-refs a[i_15] and
> a[_4]
>
> a[i_15] = _3; STMT 1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113665
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> > Honza - ICF seems to fixup points-to sets when merging variables, so there
> > should be a way to kill off flow-sensitive info inside prevailing bodies
> > as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
OK. It seems it has data dependency issue:
missed: not vectorized, possible dependence between data-refs a[i_15] and
a[_4]
a[i_15] = _3; STMT 1
_4 = i_15 + 2;
_5 = a[_4];STMT 2
STMT2 should not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems that we should fix this case (Richard gave) first which I think it's
not the SCEV or value-numbering issue:
double a[1024];
void foo ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1022; i += 2)
{
double tem =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113531
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Reduced:
#include
void f(int) { }
void g()
{
for (auto i : { 1, 2, 3 })
f (i);
f(42);
}
int main()
{
g();
g();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113394
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113394
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d826596acb02edf41ac4f76af2aed5efa3b8c698
commit r14-8643-gd826596acb02edf41ac4f76af2aed5efa3b8c698
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112917
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:320fb976e933e8892af905e68de65492568f2a49
commit r14-8642-g320fb976e933e8892af905e68de65492568f2a49
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113100
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:320fb976e933e8892af905e68de65492568f2a49
commit r14-8642-g320fb976e933e8892af905e68de65492568f2a49
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113091
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113678
Bug ID: 113678
Summary: SLP misses up vec_concat
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64 |x86_64 aarch64
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113677
Bug ID: 113677
Summary: Missing `VEC_PERM_EXPR <{a, CST}, CST, {0, 1, 2,
...}>` optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
I think the root cause is we think i_16 and _1 are alias due to scalar
evolution:
(get_scalar_evolution
(scalar = i_16)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, 2}_1))
(get_scalar_evolution
(scalar = _1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111059
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35de88e2ed0aa78f6e3306c8560cd6bb15ce0ffe
commit r14-8641-g35de88e2ed0aa78f6e3306c8560cd6bb15ce0ffe
Author: Joseph Myers
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113495
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111059
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35de88e2ed0aa78f6e3306c8560cd6bb15ce0ffe
commit r14-8641-g35de88e2ed0aa78f6e3306c8560cd6bb15ce0ffe
Author: Joseph Myers
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113509
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18aabe7d203aa1276e6cbacfb3ffc8d8fcb14966
commit r14-8640-g18aabe7d203aa1276e6cbacfb3ffc8d8fcb14966
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113676
Bug ID: 113676
Summary: Miscompilation tree-vrp __builtin_unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113495
--- Comment #33 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9dd10de15b183f7b662905e1383fdc3a08755f2e
commit r14-8639-g9dd10de15b183f7b662905e1383fdc3a08755f2e
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #12 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7250100381b817114447d91fff4748526d4fb21
commit r14-8637-gd7250100381b817114447d91fff4748526d4fb21
Author: Fangrui Song
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113675
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually the issue is not %p but rather the constraint. Anyways it is still a
dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113675
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is %z was in the process of being reviewed and added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642580.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113675
Bug ID: 113675
Summary: %p modifier doesn't work with PIC
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113607
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #19)
> What seems odd to me is that in fre5 we simplify
>
> _429 = .COND_SHL (mask_patt_205.47_276, vect_cst__262, vect_cst__262, { 0,
> ... });
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111059
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113607
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #20)
> Does ARM SVE have the same issue too ? Since I think we should be using same
> folding optimization as ARM SVE.
I could not reproduce it with SVE, see comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113607
--- Comment #20 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #19)
> What seems odd to me is that in fre5 we simplify
>
> _429 = .COND_SHL (mask_patt_205.47_276, vect_cst__262, vect_cst__262, { 0,
> ... });
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #13 from Lewis Hyatt ---
I think I understand why it is platform dependent. The location being assigned
to the restored macros is pfile->directive_line, which was stored relative to
the original line map instance, before replacing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113674
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[[attr]] causes |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113674
Bug ID: 113674
Summary: [[attr]] causes internal compiler error: in
decl_attributes, at attribs.cc:776
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113607
--- Comment #19 from Robin Dapp ---
What seems odd to me is that in fre5 we simplify
_429 = .COND_SHL (mask_patt_205.47_276, vect_cst__262, vect_cst__262, { 0,
... });
vect_prephitmp_129.51_282 = _429;
vect_iftmp.55_287 = VEC_COND_EXPR ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113671
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another reduced variant:
program arrays10
implicit none
character(5), allocatable :: a(:)
character(:), allocatable :: b(:)
a = [ character(5) :: "one", "two", "three"]
b = [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113509
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-8635-20240130094253-g24d5e0bf19f-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240130 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113509
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113663
--- Comment #4 from Lennox Ho ---
Oh right, thanks for pointing that out.
Let me try to put something together.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113671
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111881
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
Should be. Let me know if some are still not fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113672
Bug ID: 113672
Summary: [14 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pch/line-map-3.C -g -I.
-Dwith_PCH (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113656
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57265=edit
gcc14-pr113656.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
--- Comment #17 from Patrick J. LoPresti ---
Are all of the "duplicate" bugs also fixed by this change?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110358
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2061b2a9641c2228d4e2d86f19532ad7e93d627
commit r14-8636-gf2061b2a9641c2228d4e2d86f19532ad7e93d627
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109640
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2061b2a9641c2228d4e2d86f19532ad7e93d627
commit r14-8636-gf2061b2a9641c2228d4e2d86f19532ad7e93d627
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113531
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But then vnresult->result of (what is correctly believed to be in *i at the
start of the function) is different from rhs of and so it doesn't return
res;
So, I'm afraid I don't know what's going on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This vn_reference_lookup_2 call from vn_reference_lookup_3 has been added for
PR23094 in r8-4877-gd7a160a45ea7ed09.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Hmm, so we look for a *(int **) here, reach the toplevel vop, skipping *j =
> ?
> That should have conflicted.
Seems we actually saw that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
--- Comment #25 from Alex Coplan ---
Proposed fix for GCC 13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644459.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67898
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a4c47e10e8ba06f04de2d41a040ba1494843a01
commit r14-8634-g1a4c47e10e8ba06f04de2d41a040ba1494843a01
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113665
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Honza - ICF seems to fixup points-to sets when merging variables, so there
> should be a way to kill off flow-sensitive info inside prevailing bodies
> as well. But would that happen before inlining the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:209fc1e5f6c67e55e579b69f617b0b678b1bfdf0
commit r14-8633-g209fc1e5f6c67e55e579b69f617b0b678b1bfdf0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113512
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113649
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110075
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
It's hard to decide. It seems that once we've covered std::span-like classes,
in practice the warning points out real issues. I would hope that code like
you posted is actually fairly rare. But it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd7aa986fd12fc24e9d2efb8a8b267acb2bf19ea
commit r14-8632-gdd7aa986fd12fc24e9d2efb8a8b267acb2bf19ea
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113443
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113671
Bug ID: 113671
Summary: Passing allocatable character(:) slices with negative
stride: invalid memory access / segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113300
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Not a regression so I think it has to wait until GCC 15. I'd like to take a
look then.
I've updated https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> What tool did this warning come from?
Looks like cppcheck to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110358
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch for [[gnu::non_owning]] posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643998.html
Not sure how important it is to accept the optional argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113582
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch approved for GCC 15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643999.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Quoting the observation from Richard:
> We end up with the invalid
>
> _28 = (sizetype)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|13.2.0 |
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
Bug ID: 113670
Summary: ICE with vectors in named registers and
-fno-vect-cost-model
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0857a00fe3226db8801384743b6d44353dcac9da
commit r14-8631-g0857a00fe3226db8801384743b6d44353dcac9da
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113669
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is because already the FE optimizes it, when it sees that
((int)(g_B * g_A[1])) & (g_A[1] & g_A[0]) | g_A[0]
is just being added to unsigned char element, the upper bits of it aren't
needed, so the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #24 from Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113644
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113644
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af37bef86199e50368cbfbc97befe0622a07f12f
commit r14-8630-gaf37bef86199e50368cbfbc97befe0622a07f12f
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113669
Bug ID: 113669
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined failed to check a signed integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113500
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5aca83ca9c7fac895d10eb7b3e14b1927ec1eac
commit r13-8263-ga5aca83ca9c7fac895d10eb7b3e14b1927ec1eac
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113512
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bb2e52cc69902c7bf00fbdd094e948803222946
commit r13-8261-g1bb2e52cc69902c7bf00fbdd094e948803222946
Author: Jonathan
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
