https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108807
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108805
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
>
> --- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108791
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:441c466fd4d8b9afd99f585f7c4bfade911c4652
commit r13-6073-g441c466fd4d8b9afd99f585f7c4bfade911c4652
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108778
--- Comment #3 from Wilhelm M ---
This problem is not reproducible with avr-gcc 4.5.4.
But from avr-gcc 4.6.4. the problem exists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108816
Bug ID: 108816
Summary: ICE in operator[], at vec.h:889
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107096
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107096
> >
> > --- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108811
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108375
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54458|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97795
Bug 97795 depends on bug 90458, which changed state.
Bug 90458 Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] mingw64: ICE in
i386_pe_seh_unwind_emit, at config/i386/winnt.c:1258 with
-fstack-clash-protection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|10.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20c12f40f9b10eb290fcfe4d02f3367842be573a
commit r11-10527-g20c12f40f9b10eb290fcfe4d02f3367842be573a
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25b80834e2ce6725e676ef33fbf0d009b3173955
commit r12-9177-g25b80834e2ce6725e676ef33fbf0d009b3173955
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5dd99f7ef4fa5f9542851431bdd149a22b87fd2
commit r13-6069-ga5dd99f7ef4fa5f9542851431bdd149a22b87fd2
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108815
Bug ID: 108815
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/pr83677.c fails on power 9 BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108814
Bug ID: 108814
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/pr79251-run.p9.c fails on power 9
BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108813
Bug ID: 108813
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/pr101384-2.c fails on power 9 BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108812
Bug ID: 108812
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/p9-sign_extend-runnable.c fails on
power 9 BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108811
Bug ID: 108811
Summary: add enum annotation for switch statements
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108810
Bug ID: 108810
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-extract-double.p9.c fails
on power 9 BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108809
Bug ID: 108809
Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-5-p9-runnable.c fails on
power 9 BE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103608
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103608
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c75cbeba81e5b4737a9ab7dd28cce650965535a9
commit r13-6067-gc75cbeba81e5b4737a9ab7dd28cce650965535a9
Author: Steve Kargl
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104554
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a418129273725fd02e881e6fb5e0877287a1356c
commit r13-6066-ga418129273725fd02e881e6fb5e0877287a1356c
Author: Steve Kargl
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108808
--- Comment #3 from Zhihan Yue ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >This shows that the infinite loop was skipped.
>
>
> Correct. There is a requirement in the C++17 standard that requires forward
> process and therefor infinite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108808
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++11 has "Implementations should ensure that all unblocked threads
eventually make progress."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108808
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108796
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The logic is that GNU attributes are declaration specifiers (and can mix
anywhere with other declaration specifiers), but standard attributes
aren't declaration specifiers; rather, they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108808
Bug ID: 108808
Summary: G++ -O2 incorrectly bypasses an infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108804
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108804
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
_16 = (signed long) x_10;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103608
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108725
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104554
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108666
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108664
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108725
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
commit r13-6064-gb03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108666
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
commit r13-6064-gb03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108664
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
commit r13-6064-gb03a10b0b25cef4928ccead4c8a461d3674dbe86
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104346
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108805
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104321
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I think it is not only dead code but it should be also removed:
>
> Glancing at the code, the 'data = NULL;' does not make sense (cf.
> 'memcpy(lhs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> The gimplifier instead of
>
> _1 = t ();
> D.2389 = _1;
> e =
> _2 = *e;
> f (_2);
>
> produces
>
> _1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108807
Bug ID: 108807
Summary: [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-10d.c
fails after b29225597584b697762585e0b707b7cb4b427650
on power 9 BE
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54472=edit
gcc13-pr108657.patch
Untested fix. This one fixes the DSE bug which caused the .DEFERRED_INIT calls
not to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at the r13-1778 change, perhaps it wasn't intended that it changed
behavior for all internal functions that return non-SSA_NAME result.
--- gcc/tree-ssa-dse.cc.jj 2023-01-11 10:29:08.651161134
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With the deferred stuff (why don't we DCE it for variables which are otherwise
not used?), all looks fine until fre5.
In fre4 we have
k ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
c = -1;
c = 1;
foo ();
return 0;
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
fre5 deletes it:
Deleted redundant store c = 1;
Value numbering stmt = foo ();
Setting value number of .MEM_14 to .MEM_14 (changed)
Value numbering stmt = return 0;
RPO iteration over 7 blocks visited 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly more reduced:
int a = -8, c, e, f, g, i;
short b;
static int *d =
int m[256];
unsigned n = ~0U;
void
foo (int b)
{
n = (n >> 8) ^ m[(n ^ b) & 255];
}
void
bar (long x)
{
n = (n >> 8) ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108799
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Cooper ---
Adding a memory clobber doesn't make any difference that I can see, and I'm not
aware of any reason why it ought to make a difference.
I suppose that my real request here is to figure out what is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108799
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 106080, which changed state.
Bug 106080 Summary: Labels as values triggering -Wdangling-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:825a47f1bb9a42df65157d4dc0a11b2c054e97cc
commit r12-9176-g825a47f1bb9a42df65157d4dc0a11b2c054e97cc
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108721
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 54471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54471=edit
C source code
After a short reduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> However, I see a segfault that happens for the code snippet now.
In the compiler or the generated code ?
No crashes here. Are you running an asan+ubsan gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108806
Bug ID: 108806
Summary: -Wanalyzer-null-dereference false positives due to not
handling bitmasks
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Summary|missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108685
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, we have such code already:
if (broken_loop)
{
int i;
for (i = fd->collapse; i < fd->ordered; i++)
{
tree type = TREE_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #33 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, exactly. It was the X server I think? I try to forget such horrors :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31)
> Yes, there was a user who incorrectly used memcpy on non-memory memory.
>From what I remember (it was also reported about aarch64 at one point too), one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, there was a user who incorrectly used memcpy on non-memory memory.
This is not valid, and never has been.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108517
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108685
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
expand_omp_for_generic like other ompexp functions has the notion of
broken_loop for
loops where the body doesn't fall through to the artificial #pragma omp
continue.
This works fine even for doacross loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108805
Bug ID: 108805
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE: in simplify_subreg, at
simplify-rtx.cc:7400 at -O and above
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108804
Bug ID: 108804
Summary: missed vectorization in presence of conversion from
uint64_t to float
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-5999-20230215101300-g3f71b82596e-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230215 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #151 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:053d4dda0a205aba6af85fd9662118dd8109df9f
commit r13-6061-g053d4dda0a205aba6af85fd9662118dd8109df9f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d482b20fd346482635a770281a164a09d608b058
commit r13-6060-gd482b20fd346482635a770281a164a09d608b058
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108791
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 54467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54467=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #30 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #28)
> > Maybe this belongs in the ABI manual? For example, the POWER ABI says that
> > memcpy needs to work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54465|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #28)
> Maybe this belongs in the ABI manual? For example, the POWER ABI says that
> memcpy needs to work on device memory.
Huh?!
Where do you see this? The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Bug ID: 108802
Summary: missed inlining of call via pointer to member function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
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=108801
Bug ID: 108801
Summary: ICE, task’s secondary_stack_size from parent
discriminant
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, the optimization that does this has been added in
r0-99848-g844381e5bc6eb515df838279 for PR28685.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94649
--- Comment #5 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Are there any next steps here.
This is still an issue at least with gcc-12. It would be nice to get rid of the
hacks we have to avoid it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108800
Bug ID: 108800
Summary: Missed optimization: IPA-SRA keeps a single-field
structure formal parameter even when IPA-CP knows its
contents
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> Created attachment 54463 [details]
> C source code
>
> After a further hour of reduction, a partially reduced program.
>
> cvise doesn't seem able to make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b1b1b2d691d5cee4ebc40a01974ad5bccab22f9
commit r13-6003-g8b1b1b2d691d5cee4ebc40a01974ad5bccab22f9
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 54463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54463=edit
C source code
After a further hour of reduction, a partially reduced program.
cvise doesn't seem able to make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108799
Bug ID: 108799
Summary: Improper deprecation diagnostic for rsp clobber
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108512
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108512
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a8cada824c5e45ea729c112f3d1d29956067b7b
commit r13-6002-g7a8cada824c5e45ea729c112f3d1d29956067b7b
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108693
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||97977
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108351
--- Comment #4 from Xionghu Luo (luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org) ---
> early inline pass inlines the two calls with C front-end but fails to inline
> them with C++ front-end due to "growth 8 exceeds --param
> early-inlining-insns divided by number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103109
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f71b82596e992eb6e53fe9bbd70a4b52bc908e8
commit r13-5999-g3f71b82596e992eb6e53fe9bbd70a4b52bc908e8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
