https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58487
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 96004 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96004
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #65 from Alexander Klepikov
---
> I'm thinking of something else.
During kernel compile I got few internal errors in different passes. That is,
additional loop optimization pass patch is no good at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055
Bug 58055 depends on bug 58050, which changed state.
Bug 58050 Summary: No return value optimization when calling static function
through unnamed temporary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104772
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6261d10521f9fdc2a43d54b4dc365025288aa8e9
commit r14-1582-g6261d10521f9fdc2a43d54b4dc365025288aa8e9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143
--- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Those are the pointer specializations that are supported, and you can't use
> them to format int*
I see. If 'int*' was supported as a "pointer" here, 'char*'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. the library agrees that int* cannot be formatted:
/usr/include/fmt/core.h:1751:17: error: static assertion failed: Formatting of
non-void pointers is disallowed.
1751 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110038
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley ---
The procedure test is unreachable, if the module is re-written as:
MODULE fooasm ;
VAR x: INTEGER;
PROCEDURE test;
BEGIN
ASM("" : : "m"(x));
END test;
BEGIN
test
END fooasm.
then the assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143
--- Comment #1 from Bruno Haible ---
Created attachment 55273
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55273=edit
test case bug2.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143
Bug ID: 110143
Summary: std::format for pointer arguments does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Fixed on master. Will backport later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0a57904308ad0f10833f38cb207c750e5658b6b
commit r13-7420-gc0a57904308ad0f10833f38cb207c750e5658b6b
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110125
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9165ede56ababd6471e7a2ce4eab30f3d5129e14
commit r14-1578-g9165ede56ababd6471e7a2ce4eab30f3d5129e14
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27e45b7597d6fb1a71927d658a0294797b720c0a
commit r14-1577-g27e45b7597d6fb1a71927d658a0294797b720c0a
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32f2b0f32816af816605dbe8060fb903cf7d5603
commit r13-7418-g32f2b0f32816af816605dbe8060fb903cf7d5603
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109837
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Actually, I missed a crucial fine print regarding 'defaultmap(default)'
implicit mapping of pointers in C/C++. GCC actually works (with firstprivate or
with normal mapping)
→
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110142
Bug ID: 110142
Summary: [14 Regression] x264 from SPECCPU 2017 miscompares
from g:2f482a07365d9f4a94a56edd13b7f01b8f78b5a0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105
Bug 105105 depends on bug 95644, which changed state.
Bug 95644 Summary: [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Target Milestone|12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #64 from Alexander Klepikov
---
> We have to consider that SH is also a linux target and it's also used to
> build larger applications (and GCC itself ...). It'd be good to not regress
> too much in this regard. One way to check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #63 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #62)
>
> My project is small and it compiles in under 1 second on both clean and
> patched GCC. sh.exp test suite mean run time is 117s on clean and 119s on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #62 from Alexander Klepikov
---
> I'm a bit concerned about the increased compile time. Have you observed
> anything (negative) in this regard?
My project is small and it compiles in under 1 second on both clean and patched
GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31542
--- Comment #5 from Scott Minster ---
Thanks for looking at this old bug. I had totally forgotten about it myself!
I agree that it does not seem to affect any recent version of GCC. It was
likely fixed in GCC 4, and doesn't seem to affect any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110141
Bug ID: 110141
Summary: Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
>
> --- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov ---
> malloc and friends modify 'errno'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110140
Bug ID: 110140
Summary: Vector extensions cause false conflict in template
argument deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56001fad4ecc32396beead6644906e3846244b67
commit r14-1573-g56001fad4ecc32396beead6644906e3846244b67
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07a0e108247f23fcb919c61595adae143f1ea02a
commit r14-1570-g07a0e108247f23fcb919c61595adae143f1ea02a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106907
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by jeevitha :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4deccd44655c5d748dfed200a37f2b678c32fe8
commit r14-1567-gc4deccd44655c5d748dfed200a37f2b678c32fe8
Author: Jeevitha Palanisamy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No need, thanks. I'm already running tests with a patched tree, I'll push it
today (and backport to gcc-13).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #61 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #60)
> > Maybe it's easier to add some shift specific passes.
>
> Well, I couldn't think of anything better and ported the loop optimization
> pass. More precisely,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #4 from Joseph Faulls ---
Amazing, thanks for the swift response and fix! Ah yes, I didn't try -pedantic.
Do we want a patch for this? I can submit if you like, but it'd likely be you
who accepts it :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #60 from Alexander Klepikov
---
> Maybe it's easier to add some shift specific passes.
Well, I couldn't think of anything better and ported the loop optimization
pass. More precisely, all loop optimization passes, because they are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC gives an error for the original testcase with -pedantic
In file included from arr.cc:1:
/home/jwakely/gcc/13.1.0/include/c++/13.1.0/array: In instantiation of
'constexpr std::array<_Tp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #0)
> GCC 12.3/Clang 16 outputs:
> Alloc: 3
> Alloc: 6
> Alloc: 9
> Alloc: 12
"Clang 16" here actually means "Any version of Clang with libstdc++ headers
from GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you care how many times an allocator is copied? They should be cheap
(essentially free) to copy.
A far more interesting test would look at how many bytes are allocated for
string concatenation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136
--- Comment #4 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > >In the regrename passover optimization
> >
> > I am trying to understand the issue.
> >
> > 5912 ldx.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136
--- Comment #3 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >In the regrename passover optimization
>
> I am trying to understand the issue.
>
> 5912 ldx.d $r20,$r16,$r19
> 5913 add.d $r1,$r16,$r20
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
--- Comment #1 from Joseph Faulls ---
Created attachment 55270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55270=edit
Similar test case that causes a warning in gcc / error in clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139
Bug ID: 110139
Summary: [libstdc++] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized
arrays (with clang)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov ---
malloc and friends modify 'errno' on failure, so in they would have to be
special-cased for alias analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
operator+ now calls std::__cxx11::basic_string,
myAlloc_ >::get_allocator, and it will call the constructor again after
gimplify
__attribute__((nodiscard))
struct allocator_type std::__cxx11::basic_string,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
Bug ID: 110138
Summary: Extra constructor called when using
basic_string::operator+
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106769
--- Comment #3 from HaoChen Gui ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
> I wonder if Ajit's REE changes catch this unneeded zero extension?
mfvsrwz can be defined as a zero-extend on a vector select other than a SI mode
move from "wa"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110055
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84eec2916fa68cd2e2b3a2cf764f2ba595cce843
commit r14-1562-g84eec2916fa68cd2e2b3a2cf764f2ba595cce843
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109143
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21bf2b2fd99d7a94049610fc2f82db77f725d025
commit r14-1561-g21bf2b2fd99d7a94049610fc2f82db77f725d025
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aagarwa at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035
>
> --- Comment #11 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk
> ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
Bug ID: 110137
Summary: implement clang -fassume-sane-operator-new
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #63 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #62)
> What the patch including incremental one currently does is:
> 1) small _BitInt (on x86-64 N <= 64) - the BITINT_TYPEs are kept as is in
> the IL
>and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #15 from cqwrteur ---
template<::std::unsigned_integral T>
inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout) noexcept
{
T res{a+b};
carryout=res
inline constexpr T add_carry(T a,T b,T carryin,T& carryout)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
template
inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout) noexcept
{
T res{a+b};
carryout=res
inline constexpr T add_carry(T a,T b,T carryin,T& carryout) noexcept
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #13 from cqwrteur ---
Hi, the problem comes out GCC does not do a very good job to deal with crypto
computations that usually exploit all sorts of patterns.
template
inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >In the regrename passover optimization
>
> I am trying to understand the issue.
>
> 5912 ldx.d $r20,$r16,$r19
> 5913 add.d $r1,$r16,$r20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #12 from Mason ---
Actually, in this case, we don't need to propagate the carry over 3 limbs.
typedef unsigned int u32;
typedef unsigned long long u64;
/* u32 acc[2], a[1], b[1] */
static void mul_add_32x32(u32 *acc, const u32 *a,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110127
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Thank you for feedback!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136
Bug ID: 110136
Summary: After optimization, the $r1 register will be broken
when jumping to the jump table, resulting in a
significant increase in the false prediction rate of
101 - 176 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
