https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110940
Bug ID: 110940
Summary: ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in apply_scale, at
profile-count.h:1180
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109181
--- Comment #6 from waffl3x ---
PR 110927 presents a similar use case that originally lead me to this bug, I
also posted the workarounds that I had since discovered there. If anyone coming
across this bug is looking for a solution you can find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110927
waffl3x changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||waffl3x at protonmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Bug ID: 110939
Summary: 14.0 ICE at rtl.h:2297 while bootstrapping on
loongarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110912
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55704=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14483
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100798
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626580.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110779
--- Comment #8 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 55703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55703=edit
Proposed fix (addendum)
Here is a patch which tests for all the functions and structs in wrapclock.cc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddf411e67cc15a80d635b512b812107985b361d4
commit r12-9804-gddf411e67cc15a80d635b512b812107985b361d4
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61d24d3f40638326b4a24baadeb25a88610d76d8
commit r13-7693-g61d24d3f40638326b4a24baadeb25a88610d76d8
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110566
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c6e76ff039782401f705cacda60c11f8dfac3b1
commit r13-7692-g2c6e76ff039782401f705cacda60c11f8dfac3b1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108179
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c6e76ff039782401f705cacda60c11f8dfac3b1
commit r13-7692-g2c6e76ff039782401f705cacda60c11f8dfac3b1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> index 3cd470ddcca..b0bb8bc1471 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108310
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> void f(float);
>
> void g()
> {
> f(1.0);
> }
>
> conv.c: In function ‘g’:
> conv.c:5:5: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘f’ as ‘float’ rather than
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Note final->attr.pure = 0 seems to contradict C1595 while constructing
> the wrapper. I'm not too familiar with this portion of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
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=110938
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note 4.8.5 (and before), seems to have the wrong ABI for non-mutable case too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|miscompile if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|miscompile if implicit |miscompile if implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110938
Bug ID: 110938
Summary: miscompile if implicit special member is deleted in a
subtle way
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5ea5aecac323e9094e4dc967f54090cb244bc6a
commit r14-3068-gc5ea5aecac323e9094e4dc967f54090cb244bc6a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110860
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb3ceeb6520c13fc5ca08af7d43fbd3f975e72b0
commit r14-3069-gbb3ceeb6520c13fc5ca08af7d43fbd3f975e72b0
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110862
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d87f71bb462ccb78dd3d9d810ea08d96869cb4b
commit r14-3066-g5d87f71bb462ccb78dd3d9d810ea08d96869cb4b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105990
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> foo() also can be eliminated.
This one is similar to PR 105832 really.
```
_2 = (int) a.2_1;
_3 = 2 >> _2;
if (_3 == 2)
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
Bug is still present in 13.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67791
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC 9 hasn't changed, so it must be something in your Ubuntu environment or
your code.
I don't think the RTLD_xxx approach was ever robust, the libpthread.so library
needs to be loaded before the first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110937
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Created attachment 55702 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
Actually I am going to fix this with PR 100798.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110937
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55702
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55702=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110908
--- Comment #5 from zach-gcc at cs dot stanford.edu ---
I am implementing software fault isolation on top of GCC and would like for GCC
to only ever store addresses in x30. Use of x30 in its link register role is
desired (saving/restoring etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da1a888b524d620c7a17f368b69c46934b69495c
commit r14-3038-gda1a888b524d620c7a17f368b69c46934b69495c
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110779
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110937
Bug ID: 110937
Summary: (bool0 ? bool1^1 : bool1) is not optimized to bool0 ^
bool1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67791
colin.davidson at codeplay dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colin.davidson at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #8)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> > > > Does the clang implementation take into account the various problematic
> > > > cases that arise when calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> > > Does the clang implementation take into account the various problematic
> > > cases that arise when calling a normal function from a (say) preserve_all
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one that has always failed due to a similar issue where the inner cast
was removed:
```
void foo(void);
int l=1000;
int main(void)
{
short t = l;
int t1 = t;
if (t1 == 0) {
signed char b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110936
Bug ID: 110936
Summary: if constexpr: member function pointers cannot be
checked with ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Add warning flags to check |Add warnings to detect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah yes, this is a dup of the second half of that one, but maybe worth keeping
it separate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I see Jonathan had mentioned this issue in bug 85690 comment #1 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5)
> > It also makes argument registers be callee-saved, which is very
> > unconventional.
>
> Isn't this done for the this pointer in some C++ ABIs?
There are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically there is a missing VRP happening here:
l.0_1 [irange] int [-INF, -65536][0, 0][65536, +INF]
Partial equiv (b_6 pe8 l.0_1)
:
b_6 = (char) l.0_1;
...
Obvious that b_6 will have the range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b57bd27cb68fdbe5d9dcd571b1cb66f72b841290
commit r14-3036-gb57bd27cb68fdbe5d9dcd571b1cb66f72b841290
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It fails for non-contrived cases like this too:
char8_t buf[32];
std::format_to(buf, "");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24542
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Niklas Hambüchen from comment #15)
> Another common integer overflow bug type is the "for (u32 i = 0; i < u64;
> ++i)" pattern, as well as general widening comparisons.
>
> I filed bug 110933
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
--- Comment #2 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> Alternatively, we could replace the contiguous_iterator<_OutIter> constraint
> with constructible_from, _OutIter, iter_difference_t<_OutIter>>.
I think `is_same` is preferable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110933
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try -Wconversion.
Also there is no overflow here as unsigned is always defined as wrapping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110779
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f8d84955dd5c9d2882d09e9c249240efe3a02aa
commit r13-7691-g4f8d84955dd5c9d2882d09e9c249240efe3a02aa
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110853
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> For ABIs you generally want a good mix between caller- and callee-saved
> registers. The x86-64 psABI didn't do that on the SSE regs for conscious, but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #18 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
Thanks again for testing. Very much appreciated!
I like the idea of a comment and posted a patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626514.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110908
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110935
Bug ID: 110935
Summary: Missed BB reduction vectorization because of missed
eliding of a permute
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110901
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af6cfd7b663909688c6ca55b6e9f859cdde4310f
commit r14-3034-gaf6cfd7b663909688c6ca55b6e9f859cdde4310f
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110432
--- Comment #19 from Sascha Scandella ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> The fix has been backported to gcc-13 now. There should be a release
> candidate for 13.2 in the next day or so, please try it out on macOS to make
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> I tried to write up something for the x86-64 psABI:
>
> Document the ABI for __preserve_most__ function calls
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) from comment #10)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9)
>
> > > Without `-mbmi` option, gcc can not compile and all other three compiler
> > > can compile.
> >
> > As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
Huh, since when does clang implement this? See also
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/624004.html
where I asked for comments about a similar, but not same, mechanism. I came
from
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #10 from 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9)
> > Without `-mbmi` option, gcc can not compile and all other three compiler
> > can compile.
>
> As long as it keeps semantics(respect zero input), I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ibm.com> ---
> Turns out that my dejagnu foo is weak ;-) I came up with a wrong target
> selector. Should be fixed in the new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yeah, that using-directive complicates things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
--- Comment #2 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Created attachment 55701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55701=edit
bsd-closefrom preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110933
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think there should be specific warnings for the specific cases, not one that
tries to be general.
The example you give might be -Wiv-bound-conversion?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
--- Comment #3 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Is this correct to use -E to generate the file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||m68k
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110762
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:831017d5e72173f2c58e5475b7fcd35ee07a601f
commit r14-3032-g831017d5e72173f2c58e5475b7fcd35ee07a601f
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
> There is a redundant xor instrunction,
There's false dependence issue on some specific processors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
> Without `-mbmi` option, gcc can not compile and all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Bug ID: 110934
Summary: m68k: ICE with -fzero-call-used-regs=all compiling
openssh 9.3p2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106116
--- Comment #4 from Petr Skocik ---
It would be interesting to do this at the assembler level, effectively
completely turning what's equivalent to `jmp 1f; 1:` to nothing. This would
also be in line with the GNU assembler's apparent philosophy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24542
--- Comment #15 from Niklas Hambüchen ---
Another common integer overflow bug type is the "for (u32 i = 0; i < u64; ++i)"
pattern, as well as general widening comparisons.
I filed bug 110933 for those; just linking it here for people interested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110933
--- Comment #1 from Niklas Hambüchen ---
A tangentially related issue is bug 24542 which is about another common
overflow bug, the pattern "u64 = u32 * u32".
Just linking it here because people interested in solving integer overflow
issues may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110933
Bug ID: 110933
Summary: Add warning flags to check against integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110932
Bug ID: 110932
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-2230-g7e904d6c7f2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #8 from 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> No, I think what clang does is correct,
Thanks, yeap, according to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64477
I think clang did it well.
GCC also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Bug ID: 110931
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-2890-gcc2003cd875
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110696
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 110897, which changed state.
Bug 110897 Summary: RISC-V: Fail to vectorize shift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110897
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110897
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110930
Bug ID: 110930
Summary: Fix-it hints suggest wrong header for names in the
global namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99404
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
