https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111543
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* (X & ~Y) & Y -> 0 */
(simplify
(bit_and:c (bit_and @0 @1) @2)
(with { bool wascmp; }
(if (bitwise_inverted_equal_p (@0, @2, wascmp)
|| bitwise_inverted_equal_p (@1, @2, wascmp))
{ wascmp ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
--- Comment #3 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #2)
> Could you give me the code to reproduce this issue?
Testcase file:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111546
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Also checked to still be present on trunk at hash r14-4231-gfd35d72a3dc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111546
Bug ID: 111546
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: gfortran.dg/overload_5.f90:53:2:
internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at
expr.cc:4219 since r14-4163-gbea89f78f2f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
--- Comment #1 from Edwin Lu ---
Created attachment 55971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55971=edit
objdump of executable on good hash
Here is the objdump of the executable created using the good hash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
Bug ID: 111545
Summary: [14 Regression] RISC-V
gfortran.dg/host_assoc_function_7.f09 Illegal
instruction error
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
From, the original I cut it down to this. Compiles OK with r14-4110, error
with r14-4111.
bad3.c: In member function 'NameIdPoolEnumerator&
NameIdPoolEnumerator::operator=(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Actually this is the reduced testcase:
> ```
> struct bs
> {
> int * const t;
> };
> template
> struct a
> {
> int * const t;
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/commit/
> bc3189892c2e700bd3298b77cd8a523080fa74bb
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/XERCESC/issues/XERCESC-1259
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/commit/bc3189892c2e700bd3298b77cd8a523080fa74bb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is the reduced testcase:
```
struct bs
{
int * const t;
};
template
struct a
{
int * const t;
a (const a&, int *const tt, const a *c, const bs&);
};
template
a &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
MemoryManager* const fMemoryManager;
So reduced:
```
template
struct a
{
int * const t;
void f();
};
template
void a::f()
{
t = 0;
}
```
Yes this is invalid code that GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55969
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55969=edit
DGXMLScanner.ii
Reproduced w/ DGXMLScanner.ii
1. wget
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Am trying to build xerces-c-2.5.0 but am struggling for other reasons due to
its age...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |c++
Keywords|rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't attach the whole thing but I am working on cutting it down.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111497
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced the bug. The problem is in combination of splitting pseudo live
range and sharing rtl.
I hope to fix this on the next Monday or Tuesday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95710
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111427
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Unfortunately, I did not manage to reproduce the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Maybe attach a preprocessed version for completeness?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111544
Bug ID: 111544
Summary: [14 regression] assignment of read-only location after
r14-4111-g6e92a6a2a72d3b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111543
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=111542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111542
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=111543
Bug ID: 111543
Summary: `(a & b) & ~a` could be optimized before reassociation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111542
Bug ID: 111542
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 111540 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> The cause I guess, is just a bad fall-through in the arm/sync.md.
Or rather, optabs.cc:expand_atomic_test_and_set, which makes this issue
somewhat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111541
Bug ID: 111541
Summary: missing optimization x & ~c | (y | c) -> x | (y | c)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111540
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 55968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55968=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111540
Bug ID: 111540
Summary: Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-dce -fno-tree-dce
-fno-tree-sra'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111504
--- Comment #3 from Xiang Gao ---
Cross posted at: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67056
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111531
--- Comment #4 from Paul Haile ---
The only time I could imagine allowing type mismatch would be in allowing the
function pointer to allow void * in type erased contexts.
e.g.
typedef void (*b_fptr)(void *);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #56 from Jürgen Reuter ---
What do we do now? We know the offending commit, and the commit that fixed (or
"fixed") it. Closing? Do we understand what happened here, so why it went wrong
and why it got fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111539
Bug ID: 111539
Summary: __is_range_adaptor_closure_fn is too loosely defined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd35d72a3dcd5ba14d81a1890236acd0145497e1
commit r14-4231-gfd35d72a3dcd5ba14d81a1890236acd0145497e1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111538
Bug ID: 111538
Summary: Unhelpful message when returning initializer list when
deducing the return type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111529
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c62af101e11e1cce573c2b3d2e18b403412dbc8
commit r14-4229-g9c62af101e11e1cce573c2b3d2e18b403412dbc8
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111531
--- Comment #3 from Paul Haile ---
Fair enough definitely could be intentional. However, In this example
renaming
typedef void (*b_fptr)(B *);
to
typedef void (*b_fptr)(A *);
gets rid of the error.
It seems restricting the binding such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
--- Comment #8 from Ivan Sorokin ---
> How often these show up, I have no idea.
Perhaps I should have written this in the original message.
The original expression "(x | c) & ~(y | c)" is obviously a reduced version of
what happens in real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
--- Comment #7 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Fixed.
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111471
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7d2bb488efbdeab42cf047d92cf0f9acdc1c5ec
commit r13-7830-gb7d2bb488efbdeab42cf047d92cf0f9acdc1c5ec
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
Bug ID: 111537
Summary: ICE: in set_cell_span, at text-art/table.cc:148 with D
front-end and -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111493
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fea14def849dd38b098b0e2d54e64801f9c1f43
commit r14-4225-g1fea14def849dd38b098b0e2d54e64801f9c1f43
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111485
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f902a42b0afe3f3145bcb864695fc290b5acc3e
commit r14-4224-g6f902a42b0afe3f3145bcb864695fc290b5acc3e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111536
Bug ID: 111536
Summary: -fanalyzer false positive with NRVO return
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111498
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> That just might cause a tid more early threading. That is, expose latent
> profile updating issues elsewhere. Looking at the graph we're also still very
> good compared to July.
Early threading should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111535
Bug ID: 111535
Summary: _RangeAdaptorClosure's (range | adaptor) operator is
underconstrained
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Hm, but the COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS variable is only used for communicating
> between the driver and the linker, the options therein are individually
> passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111517
--- Comment #6 from Axel Mueller ---
I can confirm that the code now works with trunk version on godbolt.
Thanks for the quick analysis (and of course the fix). Looking forward to the
12.4 fix release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111451
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
61 matches
Mail list logo
