https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57558
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57558&action=edit
32-bit i686-pc-linux-gnu assembler output
I'm attaching the assembler output for the reduced (all but ps_* and e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57557&action=edit
32- bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
Bug ID: 114148
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr106010-7b.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > It's the old argument on whether isnan(NaN) should return true or false with
> > -ffinite-math-only. With what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
--- Comment #5 from Pilar Latiesa ---
Another testcase:
struct TKey { int i, j, k, w; };
TKey Key(int x)
{ return {x, 0, x, 0}; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
Christopher Nerz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Christopher.Nerz at de dot
bosch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a fixed
patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but "November" is
November 2016 - the "November" one is the *old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] Extra mov |[14 Regression] Extra mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|std::map with std::vector |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #13 from mfarca ---
Would you please backport this to 12 when the patch lands?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
--- Comment #2 from __vic ---
Shouldn't this be added?
template::value, _T1, _T2> = true>
explicit
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
tuple(allocator_arg_t __tag, const _Alloc& __a)
: _Inherited(__tag, __a) { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92f07eb406612fa341dc33d9d6e4f3781dc09452
commit r14-9208-g92f07eb406612fa341dc33d9d6e4f3781dc09452
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jchrist at linux dot
ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91567
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6864a2aa78a893afea26eb8fc1aa4b7ade3e940f
commit r14-9207-g6864a2aa78a893afea26eb8fc1aa4b7ade3e940f
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Wed Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db465230cccf0844e803dd6701756054fe97244a
commit r14-9206-gdb465230cccf0844e803dd6701756054fe97244a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
--- Comment #1 from __vic ---
Why _ImplicitDefaultCtor is required here?
template::value, _T1, _T2> = true>
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
tuple(allocator_arg_t __tag, const _Alloc& __a)
: _Inherited(__tag, __a) { }
Missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Bug ID: 114147
Summary: tuple allocator-extended constructor requires
non-explicit default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, ok. So then expansion should just concentrate on the fabs (x) <= nextafter
(inf, 0) case for soft-float case and defer the rest to PR66462 which would
handle that much earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Juergen Christ :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82ebfd35da49e5df87da132a7b8c41baeebc57b4
commit r14-9205-g82ebfd35da49e5df87da132a7b8c41baeebc57b4
Author: Juergen Christ
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114013
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
--- Comment #3 from Pilar Latiesa ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I guess the testcase can be simplified to just show the return value
> handling issue.
I think this suffices:
struct TVec3D { double x, y, z; };
struct TKey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #42 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #41)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #40)
> > It seems that the reason for is ultimately -Og, not this
> > patch. See Bug 78685.
>
> No. When PR78685 would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114146
Bug ID: 114146
Summary: REPEATABLE argument of RANDOM_INIT and repeated
execution of the program
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145
Bug ID: 114145
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I can change the comparison into assert,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
While RA should be able to deal with this,
shouldn't we also just lower TBLs in gimple?
This no reason why this can't be a VEC_PERM_EXPR which would also get the
copies
removed at the gimple level and allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 114041, which changed state.
Bug 114041 Summary: wrong code with _BitInt() and -O -fgraphite-identity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I can change the comparison into assert, or defer that for stage1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6479050ecef10fd5e67b4da989229e4cfac53ee
commit r14-9204-gd6479050ecef10fd5e67b4da989229e4cfac53ee
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #28 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc383e9702897dd783657ea3dce4aecf48318441
commit r14-9203-gcc383e9702897dd783657ea3dce4aecf48318441
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
> I'm all for removing the 1/3 for innermost loop handling (in cunroll
> the unrolled loop is then innermost). I'm more concerned about
> unrolling more than one level which is exactly what's required for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
>
> --- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> incomplete bugreport
Sorry, my mistake. I created a new one, when an
old one is a better place.
See # 112938 for more details.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 57554 [details]
> gcc14-pr114041.patch
>
> stmt_simple_for_scop_p tests for INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (it used to test
> INTEGER_TYPE some years ago)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #40)
> It seems that the reason for is ultimately -Og, not this
> patch. See Bug 78685.
No. When PR78685 would be fixed by adding artificial hidden uses of variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
It's the old argument on whether isnan(NaN) should return true or false with
-ffinite-math-only. With what we currently do "constant folding" sNaN into NaN
would be correct with -fno-signalling-nans, like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #40 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #29)
> > I belief this could and should be somehow be fixed by adding DWARF info that
> > certain callee-saved registers (=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 102435, which changed state.
Bug 102435 Summary: gcc 9: aarch64 -ftree-loop-vectorize results in wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102435
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.4.1 |9.3.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Monakov ---
The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
note of various approaches to remedy the problem in one bug report.
(in any case, all discussion of the Valgrind-based approa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
