https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83349
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sdmike9r at liargroup dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch3root at openwall dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Further reduced:
int a [1];
void foo (int n)
{
if (n <= 1) return;
int i = 1;
a [i] = a [i - 1];
}
This is one of these false positives warning where we should maybe not warn but
instead just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a7ce8570997eb1596c803443d20687b43fa2e47
commit r12-6103-g1a7ce8570997eb1596c803443d20687b43fa2e47
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-12-07 00:46:46 |2021-12-22
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #13 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #12)
> Could you double check? If it still failed, could you share your
> configuration?
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -v
Using built-in specs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48110
Bug 48110 depends on bug 53776, which changed state.
Bug 53776 Summary: pragma optimize does not support Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53776
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0, 8.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #11)
> Unfortunately, I still have exactly the same ICE on this testcase w/ 12.0.0
> alpha20211219 snapshot:
>
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -mcpu=401 tt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43883
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
4.7 produces:
shr rsi, 63
mov rax, rdi
xor edi, edi
add rax, rsi
xor r10d, r10d
mov r9, rax
mov rdx, r10
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101253
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103808
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a latent bug exposed by my match.pd patch (r12-5392).
In GCC 11.2.0 we had:
y_18 = iftmp.0_10 > a_14 ? 2 : 0;
While on the trunk we have:
y_18 = prephitmp_29 * 2;
But doing this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103808
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103808
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 52047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52047=edit
remove an assert() that causes an ICE in the face of invalid code
The attach patch removes an assert() and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 52046
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52046
New diff
This replaces the first diff, which was prematurely created.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 52046
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52046=edit
New diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
struct a {
char b;
char c[];
} ;
struct a d;
int main() {
return d.c[0x4000] || d.c[1];
}
In GCC 10 (and before) fold would produce:
return ((unsigned char) BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813
Bug ID: 103813
Summary: Crash in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 fold-const
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81371
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
It would be nice to have a way to print the original std::string name, but
depends if it is really worth all the trouble to have an the non expanded
template name as alternative... It would make error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103812
Bug ID: 103812
Summary: -fcond-mismatch could use a testcase that covers its
documented behavior better
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
() {[](A<[]{}>){};}
Tested on https://godbolt.org/ , GCC trunk 12.0.0 20211222.
The same thing happens if I move the nested lambda to A's default argument:
template struct A {};
int main() {[](A<>){};}
MSVC also ICEs on the second snippet, but not on the first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103810
Bug ID: 103810
Summary: -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions flag could
use a testcase that covers its documentation better
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103808
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> Hmm, can't we just check COMPLETE_TYPE_P in pointer_int_sum directly? Patch
> to that effect posted at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103809
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Aha, I did not noticed that we need special patterns (I extecpted this is
problem to solve in machine independent code). So I guess we have
1) SLP should vectorize the 3 accesses with -ffast-math to only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103795
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93645
--- Comment #13 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > > I replied here:
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103776
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103778
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff0ad4b5e16b8828a6147ae2d5fec8068ef0778e
commit r12-6101-gff0ad4b5e16b8828a6147ae2d5fec8068ef0778e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103776
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5474092c9afbd76cbd457facce3757d8d2fad07b
commit r12-6100-g5474092c9afbd76cbd457facce3757d8d2fad07b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55713
Bug 55713 depends on bug 93711, which changed state.
Bug 93711 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: [[no_unique_address] when constructing
via template helper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103809
Bug ID: 103809
Summary: spurious reporting of structure redefinition
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think the right patch is to check to see if the pointed to type is
> complete in pointer_int_sum before calling size_in_bytes_loc. But there is
> no function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103808
Bug ID: 103808
Summary: [12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/
-O2 -ftrapv
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-22
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> LLVM is able to produce the neg/branch combo now while GCC is not.
One more testcase:
void foo (void);
void bar (void);
int g(int, int);
int
test (int a)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just to summarize this bug as far as I read it, please correct me if I am
wrong; note I am not proposing a change, just trying to summarize the back and
forth since it is not obvious right away of what the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
--- Comment #6 from Martin Reinecke ---
Ouch. That reminds me when Redhat(?) did the same many years ago and caused no
end of confusion. Anyway, sorry for the noise!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
--- Comment #4 from Martin Reinecke ---
Sorry if I specified the wrong version. My local (Debian unstable) g++ reports
martin@marvin:~/codes/ducc$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> recip pass happens after vectorization
> I don't know/understand why though.
Yep, I suppose we want to either special case this in vectorizer or make
it earlier... I also wonder why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.2.0 |11.2.1
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> Having this however I do not see slp analyzing the divide in the original
> code at all.
recip pass happens after vectorization
I don't know/understand why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||97700
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103807
Bug ID: 103807
Summary: Unable to make template class instance with default
parameter of lambda::function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103806
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2018-July/226847.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93902
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> foo3 is more complex because x86 does not have an unsigned long 64bit to
> double so it has to do some more complex.
But the point is that GCC shouldn't do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102050
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60437
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103806
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-22
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103804
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53962
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103801
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Did you build newlib along side GCC? Or did you do the two steps of building
> > GCC with C only and then newlib and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103801
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Did you build newlib along side GCC? Or did you do the two steps of building
> GCC with C only and then newlib and then GCC with C++ support?
I suggest removing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103801
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Did you build newlib along side GCC? Or did you do the two steps of building
> GCC with C only and then newlib and then GCC with C++ support?
I tried newlib, newlib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #17)
> And what do you mean"This is not canonical form on RTL, and it's not a
> useful form either" in c#7, please? Not understanding the point...
On Gimple it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
You may try exporting GIMPLE IL that can be consumed with -fgimple.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #16)
> > +2016-11-09 Segher Boessenkool
> > +
> > + * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
> > + (xor (and (xor A B) C) B) to (ior (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103806
Bug ID: 103806
Summary: internal compiler error: in vague_linkage_p, at
cp/decl2.c:2192 for pdp11-aout target
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103805
Bug ID: 103805
Summary: Inconsistent exception specifications
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
Created attachment 52042
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52042=edit
b.slp1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> -E and remove not needed code.
>
> > The
> > declaratoins are quite convoluted, but the function is well isolated and
> > easy to inspect from full one...
>
> Do we speak about:
>
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
