https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
> So it looks like a generic problem and better to be handled in
> expand_partial_{load, store}_optab_fn?
There're many other places with assumption MEM_SIZE is equal to MODE_SIZE even
!MEM_SIZE_KNOWN_P,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Either r14-1981 or r14-1951
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
g++ -O3 -c ... is enough to repro
ude the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
```
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0 p, commit 6cb33e2f39e289ec4f25f845d8153053147c5c49) 14.0.0
20230620 (experimental) f5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Founda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 83733, which changed state.
Bug 83733 Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive for %d on bounded integer
when inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 94021, which changed state.
Bug 94021 Summary: -Wformat-truncation false positive due to excessive integer
range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 80776, which changed state.
Bug 80776 Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive for %d on integer bounded
by __builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79161
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is fixed for GCC 10 by r10-1052-gc29c92c789d9 (and the related
patch after that which disable it for the C front-end but enables it for
C++11+)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 11180, which changed state.
Bug 11180 Summary: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of struct
assignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36127
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So what seems to be happening is PRE is pull out the following from the loop:
pretmp_250 = MEM[(float *)_2 + 4294933760B + ivtmp.159_57 * 1];
_22 = (void *) ivtmp.140_79;
pretmp_253 = MEM[(float *)_22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110331
Bug ID: 110331
Summary: ppc64 vec_extract with constant index is suboptimal on
P8
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 110018, which changed state.
Bug 110018 Summary: Missing vectorizable_conversion(unsigned char -> double)
for BB vectorizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f19cf7526168f840fd22f6af3f0cb67efb90dc8
commit r14-2007-g6f19cf7526168f840fd22f6af3f0cb67efb90dc8
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #85 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #83)
> Created attachment 55367 [details]
> Collapsed libcall and additional loop move invariants patch v3
Thanks for staying on it! I've looked through the latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Adding this debug code :
__builtin_fprintf (stderr, "DEBUG:>> %d - %d - %d\n",
get_lra_reg_info_size () ,
max_reg_num (), ORIGINAL_REGNO (operand_reg[nop]));
shows for the failing case:
DEBUG:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||csaba_22 at yahoo dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82894
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
commit r14-2005-gf5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Bug ID: 110330
Summary: GCC does not diagnose ambiguous function introduced
from base class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100650
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at archaeologic dot
codes
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f3be7cbebce8ec9e0c5d9340b2772581454b862
commit r14-2004-g4f3be7cbebce8ec9e0c5d9340b2772581454b862
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Correction with regards to reg_info_size:
I claimed that reg_info_size = 3659 > 3483 – but that's not quite true.
That's the result when doing 'p reg_info_size' in lra-constraints.cc.
When going 'up' in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110305
--- Comment #9 from Michael Morrell ---
And what about when -frounding-math is used? The transformation will still
occur in simplify_binary_operation_1 if -frounding-math -fno-signed-zeros
-fno-signaling-nans is used. Note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Note the REG_EH_REGION. This is relevant because can_nonlocal_goto checks
> it, so for insn 25 we knew it wouldn't return to the setjmp receiver.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110329
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4eb01f987606e82ba4b7696f6cf79266d9e242ad
commit r13-7462-g4eb01f987606e82ba4b7696f6cf79266d9e242ad
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9df688cbf908adc43e92bd012dafa88680ea11dc
commit r13-7461-g9df688cbf908adc43e92bd012dafa88680ea11dc
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff00fa1914e42d6b9c45cb36a5c99f94c4133cba
commit r13-7460-gff00fa1914e42d6b9c45cb36a5c99f94c4133cba
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101002
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110329
Bug ID: 110329
Summary: [14 regression] build fails building documentation
after r14-1949-g957ae904065917
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #19 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #18)
> Would you mind if I clarified a few points regarding your query? I'm
> referring to implementing "sub borrow" with sub_overflow, as demonstrated in
> the code snippet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Some more debugging: We have:
(gdb) p debug_rtx(curr_id->insn)
(insn 106 3450 3080 4 (parallel [
(set (reg/f:DI 1433)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 16 s16 [3483])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #18 from cqwrteur ---
Would you mind if I clarified a few points regarding your query? I'm referring
to implementing "sub borrow" with sub_overflow, as demonstrated in the code
snippet at https://godbolt.org/z/ev3TfeTvd , correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
--- Comment #2 from Franck Behaghel
---
>This is new in 14, was OK when forking 13.
>https://ada.godbolt.org/z/TvbPxYfnP
>Currently bisecting.
Marc,
Released version may have checks disabled :
If the file gcc/DEV-PHASE contains experimental,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55364|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe later, I'm currently busy with _BitInt support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #16 from cqwrteur ---
ok
Would you mind looking at the following link, https://godbolt.org/z/z7K79YMWr,
and sharing your thoughts? I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you
very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #13)
> See this:
> https://godbolt.org/z/eozPahn9G
>
>
> addcarry pattern it recognizes but not subcarry.
And see this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
https://godbolt.org/z/4ej4dnr4b
I find a bug here:
f0 = __builtin_subcl(f0,v,0,);
f1 = __builtin_subcl(f1,zero,carry,);
The compiler generates:
setb %cl//redundant
movzbl %cl, %ecx//redundant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #13 from cqwrteur ---
See this:
https://godbolt.org/z/eozPahn9G
addcarry pattern it recognizes but not subcarry.
You can see it does not recognize the following:
template
inline constexpr T sub_carry(T x,T y,T carryin,T&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110328
Bug ID: 110328
Summary: Module related optimization is too aggressive
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8f68c4ca622a24c2e8cf2b5f2f9fdcd47a7b369
commit r14-2001-gf8f68c4ca622a24c2e8cf2b5f2f9fdcd47a7b369
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> Jürgen,
>
> I'm afraid we need a reproducer. Or can you bisect the regression further?
In principle, I could. But I just undid this commit of yours which is just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
gcc-consolidation.h is included by
m2/m2.flex:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
m2/gm2-lang.cc:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
m2/m2pp.cc:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch by Tamar (thanks!):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/622387.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression][bootstrap, |[14
|nvptx]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(gdb) p ((enum rtx_code) (x)->code)
$3 = DEFINE_COND_EXEC
(gdb) p (int)((enum rtx_code) (x)->code)
$4 = 172
and hence:
(gdb) p rtx_format[172]
$6 = 0x4bcda0 "EssV"
where we take the index 2 => 's'.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> Ugh, I just realised I was using --personality=arm which is almost certainly
> it (used bash history without checking). Sorry for the noise. I'll reopen if
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110327
Bug ID: 110327
Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination
when using __builtin_unreachable since
r12-4790-g4b3a325f07a
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
BTW, regarding: type 'T', have 's'
/* Indexed by rtx code, gives a sequence of operand-types for
rtx's of that code. The sequence is a C string in which
each character describes one operand. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #84 from Alexander Klepikov
---
I've forgot to say that first I ran all tests with SH specific loop
optimization enabled when condition 'optimize && flag_move_loop_invariants' is
true. And only then I ran all tests with final (at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
commit r13-7459-g4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
Author: Ian Lance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
commit r14-1999-gefecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55374=edit
/proc/cpuinfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
In the debugger for 'convert_syntax', it fails immediately. The caller is:
1055case DEFINE_COND_EXEC:
1056 convert_syntax (desc, loc);
(gdb) p debug_rtx(desc)
(define_cond_exec [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
--- Comment #1 from Marc Poulhiès ---
This is new in 14, was OK when forking 13.
https://ada.godbolt.org/z/TvbPxYfnP
Currently bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-march=armv8.2-a+crc+profile+nofp+nolse+nordma
This seems totally wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
Bug ID: 110326
Summary: [gcc 14.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
Marc Poulhiès changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Host compiler is:
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0 p, commit f9de5c24b9a6172d48786289035eed8f947c04c1) 14.0.0
20230616 (experimental) a371a639b76f1bdcd7a957f400b5a7c0faf30a15
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Cross-compiler needs HAVE_AS_EXPLICIT_RELOCS=1.
With checking enabled, we get:
t.c:8:1: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
(call_insn 97 96 98 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 $0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is the host compiler?
It is the host compiler that is failing with -mcpu=native.
Can you add -v to the failing command in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
>
> (i) Have I got the lot?
>
I believe so.
> (ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?
>
I always try to report the bugs at the same time they go into my
"database". The first is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -Wformat-nonliteral is not enabled by default either (though IIRC Debian
and Ubuntu turn it on by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109943
--- Comment #2 from Theodoros Theodoridis ---
Not sure if it's useful but the following also started with the same commit:
https://godbolt.org/z/Tqha4K976
Given the following code:
void foo(void);
static int d, e, h;
static int *f = , *q;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55373=edit
build.lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Bug ID: 110325
Summary: [14 regression] Build failure on arm64
(libiberty/physmem.c:83:1: error: ‘+nofp’ feature
modifier is incompatible with the use of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
--- Comment #4 from Serge Ayoun ---
Thanks guys for your help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Bug ID: 110324
Summary: [14 Regression][bootstrap, nvptx] build/genpreds:
Internal error: RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'T',
have 's' due to r14-1949-g957ae904065917
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110276
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0be3a051c03965c5c0385b783837154902bc08fa
commit r14-1998-g0be3a051c03965c5c0385b783837154902bc08fa
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
Bug ID: 110323
Summary: Code for explicit instantiation of template method of
template class
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ---
One thing that is unusual about the GCN stack pointer is that it's actually two
registers. Could this be breaking some cprop assumptions?
GCN can't fit an address in one (SImode) register so all (DImode)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Neil,
> I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor,
> but confirm that it gets it wrong as you said. I'll give you the honor of
> submitting a bug report.
Will do!
>
>
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
