https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I applied the LoongArch port patch (upstream PR 678, config.guess and
config.sub changes stripped and Makefile.am conflict resolved manually) and use
autogen.sh to regenerate the build system. But libgo build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109003
Bug ID: 109003
Summary: memory leak in module loading (mio_formal_arglist)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can skip things not relevant to this issue by configuring with:
--disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c++,c
--disable-libcc1 --disable-libitm --disable-libvtv --disable-libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Plus you can use --disable-bootstrap and maybe not rebuild llvm and just set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #4)
> > > This test case was passing with older versions of LLVM/Clang +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #6 from Tom Stellard ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #4)
> > This test case was passing with older versions of LLVM/Clang + gcc-13.0.1,
> > so I bisected it down to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> I would really not like to do that, the false positives rate is pretty low.
You right! I noticed the warning for about 3 packages of 3300 we have in a
testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108772
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108738
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6010189923908501ca5b02bd1f4aee05d2283118
commit r13-6439-g6010189923908501ca5b02bd1f4aee05d2283118
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108772
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33ca5c92dfa7e2f591a838bb768d9d6eea56793b
commit r13-6438-g33ca5c92dfa7e2f591a838bb768d9d6eea56793b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109002
--- Comment #2 from Akihiko Odaki ---
Oops. Replacing i++ with i = !i removes the undefined behavior while the bug
still remains.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109002
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there will be undefined behavior when i become INT_MAx.
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230302 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-mlittle-endian' '-mabi=lp64'
/home/alarm/gcc-installation/usr/local/bin/../libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.1/cc1
-quiet -v -iprefix
/home/alarm/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106770
--- Comment #12 from Surya Kumari Jangala ---
(In reply to Jens Seifert from comment #6)
> The left part of VSX registers overlaps with floating point registers, that
> is why no register xxpermdi is required and mfvsrd can access all (left)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100127
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e4122f1159ace52c114c011013adce25172d77b
commit r13-6437-g1e4122f1159ace52c114c011013adce25172d77b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109001
Bug ID: 109001
Summary: “no declaration matches” for complicated non-type
template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Merging libffi is a big change and not suitable for stage 3 IMO.
Can we can apply the LoongArch patch locally instead? It will not affect other
targets and even if does not work perfectly on LoongArch we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109000
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.2.0, 13.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109000
Bug ID: 109000
Summary: LoongArch: "unmatched" -mabi and -mfpu setting can
break ABI silently
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #4)
> This test case was passing with older versions of LLVM/Clang + gcc-13.0.1,
> so I bisected it down to this commit:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #4 from Tom Stellard ---
This test case was passing with older versions of LLVM/Clang + gcc-13.0.1, so I
bisected it down to this commit:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6747fc07d1aa94e22622e278e5a02ba70675ac9b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108877
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108877
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c90e68bffa37edd655dd2f5d14bb7b213c9e2431
commit r10-11235-gc90e68bffa37edd655dd2f5d14bb7b213c9e2431
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108877
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe6cd1ba23ecbce9c0206c08db182cb5164e3b7d
commit r11-10554-gfe6cd1ba23ecbce9c0206c08db182cb5164e3b7d
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108877
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2583365912c8700abe1f4a23ed611acb80fac09d
commit r12-9212-g2583365912c8700abe1f4a23ed611acb80fac09d
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn ---
We're working to add a Power10 system to the Compile Farm. The systems are at
OSUOSL, but Power10 doesn't have official KVM support so the interface to the
OpenStack management system is complicated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108999
Bug ID: 108999
Summary: Maybe LRA produce inaccurate hardware register
occupancy information for subreg operand
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #11 from Rui Ueyama ---
I'll try to add a POWER10 support to mold using Qemu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108167
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108945
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108946
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108877
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce1cea3e22f58bbddde017f8a92e59bae8892339
commit r13-6432-gce1cea3e22f58bbddde017f8a92e59bae8892339
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108946
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:929c6b8cd12a3bd338a4c250274a9d86da5b2ea7
commit r13-6433-g929c6b8cd12a3bd338a4c250274a9d86da5b2ea7
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108167
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33a7811896a6c8e6fa71e385dbdf5013d833a116
commit r13-6431-g33a7811896a6c8e6fa71e385dbdf5013d833a116
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108945
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51af8a6401eea726d3498e6b2aba456b6af246d6
commit r13-6430-g51af8a6401eea726d3498e6b2aba456b6af246d6
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #3)
> For cond == 789
> if (cond_2(D) == 789)
> goto ; [20.24%]
> else
> goto ; [79.76%]
>
> For cond != 789
> if (cond_2(D) != 789)
> goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
--- Comment #3 from waffl3x ---
I made a mistake in my previous comment, the version on my system that fails is
12.2.1, sorry for any possible confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
--- Comment #1 from waffl3x ---
I ran it on my local system, just to get some line numbers, and I accidentally
ran it on an older version (12.1) and found that it has a similar result, I'm
posting the output of -v and the error of both here. As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
--- Comment #3 from Nikita Kniazev ---
For cond == 789
if (cond_2(D) == 789)
goto ; [20.24%]
else
goto ; [79.76%]
For cond != 789
if (cond_2(D) != 789)
goto ; [48.88%]
else
goto ; [51.12%]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I think p_c_e just needs to handle constexpr functors in templates. I'll poke
more tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
Bug ID: 108998
Summary: ICE in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16037
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108991
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73bbfd5970ba3b7a5bcb3f7043d93fec89ccb991
commit r13-6428-g73bbfd5970ba3b7a5bcb3f7043d93fec89ccb991
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108865
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Costas Argyris from comment #15)
> Sounds like I am hitting a separate existing limitation that has nothing to
> do with this bug.
>
> Do we need a new bug report for that one then?
No one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94756
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed now on the trunk. I'd wait a little bit with backports, though I think
the gmp-param.h change doesn't need backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16151
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26137
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18247
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16965
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87204
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94756
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
commit r13-6427-gdf63f4162c78ef799d4ea9dec3443d5e9c51e5aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6978df2c04df165eaa6aac9e17b6c770bed460e3
commit r13-6426-g6978df2c04df165eaa6aac9e17b6c770bed460e3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #6)
> > The duplication happens even if I make cond int and compare with any other
> > value
> >
> > void use(int *);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #6)
> The duplication happens even if I make cond int and compare with any other
> value
>
> void use(int *);
> void use2(int *);
>
> void foo(int * p, int cond)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #1)
> Is it about bool?
YES.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #6 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> Did you see this in real code or you just noticed this while looking at code
> generation?
If you mean do I have any benchmark - unfortunately no. I noticed it for a
while by poking different code to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107999
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I filed PR 108997 for what seems like the wrong heurstic for the
prediction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107999
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b432c0f777ab9b8436fb07f71de6ea4d259b869
commit r13-6425-g6b432c0f777ab9b8436fb07f71de6ea4d259b869
Author: Guillaume Gomez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
Bug ID: 108997
Summary: GCC prediction on bool comparisons seems wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did you see this in real code or you just noticed this while looking at code
generation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107504
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84471
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2639f9d2313664e6b4ed2f8131fefa60aeeb0518
commit r13-6424-g2639f9d2313664e6b4ed2f8131fefa60aeeb0518
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-March/059003.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like it doesn't even need the asm stmt at line 32 to consider that it
could take the false-then-true path.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
...where trunk emits:
test.c:35:22: warning: dereference of NULL 'ptr' [CWE-476]
[-Wanalyzer-null-dereference]
35 | ptr[0] = ~ptr[0];
| ~~~^~~
'foo': events 1-6
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Minimized version of attachment 54572:
struct cpu_info {
/* [...snip...] */
struct vcpu *current_vcpu;
/* [...snip...] */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Cooper ---
Wow that's a lot of junk getting included for the minimal include set I could
easily make.
It occurs to me only after posting that you're liable to fail at:
asm ( ".include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Cooper ---
Created attachment 54572
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54572=edit
Preprocessed example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108975
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Cooper ---
I've constructed an example which might be the knockon effect you were worried
about?
void foo(char *other)
{
char *ptr = NULL;
if ( current->domain )
ptr = other;
asm volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #9)
[...snip...]
> Our code does fundamentally rely on get_cpu_info() always returning the same
> pointer (on a single CPU). For example, `current` is defined as
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #9)
[...snip...]
> Would a const annotation on get_cpu_info() be likely to help? It occurs to
> me that this is true in all cases that the compiler could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Cooper ---
>From trying this out, a const attribute doesn't alter the code generation in
the slightest, so I presume GCC has already figured the const-ness out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Cooper ---
Thank-you for the fix.
I've recompiled master and this uninitialised warning has gone.
Unfortunately, Xen isn't GCC-13 clean (seems like a real bug in Xen), and the
analyser has pointed out various other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
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=108993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108996
Bug ID: 108996
Summary: Proposal for adding DWARF call site information got
GCC with -O0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe related to :
r13-2801-g94ccaf62c378c3
r13-2870-g386ebf75f4c034
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #13 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.03.2023 um 19:47 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot
gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #11 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #12 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #9)
>
> Here, we want to use a member of the struct as a size
> expression. This could work equally at function and file scope.
> But the semantics need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108243
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> Why do you think this is a bug?
> I don't see anything wrong with the newer versions of gcc.
> Duplicating the basic blocks is done on purpose for speed reasons.
I understand that removing diamonds is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #11 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #9)
>
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/wg14_document_log
thanks for the info.
>
> But we made variably modified types mandatory in C23 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why do you think this is a bug?
I don't see anything wrong with the newer versions of gcc.
Duplicating the basic blocks is done on purpose for speed reasons.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #2 from Tom Stellard ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/aarch64-redhat-linux/13/lto-wrapper
Target: aarch64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --enable-bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you supply the output of "gcc -v"?
There was a bug dealing with the unwinder which wad fixed in the last month.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97553
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5425159d176a7a92afc932cbb22d8822667099c4
commit r13-6422-g5425159d176a7a92afc932cbb22d8822667099c4
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108243
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5425159d176a7a92afc932cbb22d8822667099c4
commit r13-6422-g5425159d176a7a92afc932cbb22d8822667099c4
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
