https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Bug 110869 depends on bug 110867, which changed state.
Bug 110867 Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in combine after
7cdd0860949c6c3232e6cff1d7ca37bb5234074c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110864
Bug 110864 depends on bug 110867, which changed state.
Bug 110867 Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in combine after
7cdd0860949c6c3232e6cff1d7ca37bb5234074c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209
Julian Waters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tanksherman27 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
The patch is pushed. I'm running a bootstrap and I'll close this PR after it
successes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
--- Comment #14 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #13)
> Created attachment 56023 [details]
> Tentative fix
Re " That now triggers a warning
in some configurations, since the NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS>1 tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #10 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note for non-C++11 constexpr, using switch here would most likely be better .
Thank you for the comment. It helped me to solve my problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #9 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Hwang Joonhyung from comment #0)
> > It took more than 30 minutes when I compiled testcase.cc with g++ 14.0.0
> > 20231001 on Debi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
38.25% cc1plus cc1plus [.] walk_tree_1
34.60% cc1plus cc1plus [.] cp_fold_immediate_r
20.08% cc1plus cc1plus [.] cp_walk_subtrees
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hwang Joonhyung from comment #0)
> It took more than 30 minutes when I compiled testcase.cc with g++ 14.0.0
> 20231001 on Debian GNU/Linux 12 with -std=gnu++2a (or gnu++20, c++2a, c++20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for non-C++11 constexpr, using switch here would most likely be better .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #4 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
I can see the time spent changes exponentially when I change the number of
ternary operators in the constexpr function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #3 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
Created attachment 56027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56027=edit
It took 36 seconds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #2 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
Created attachment 56026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56026=edit
It took 70 seconds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #1 from Hwang Joonhyung ---
Created attachment 56025
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56025=edit
It took 138 seconds.
30 minutes.
It took more than 30 minutes when I compiled testcase.cc with g++ 14.0.0
20231001 on Debian GNU/Linux 12 with -std=gnu++2a (or gnu++20, c++2a, c++20).
I guess it is a regression because it finishes within 0.1 second with g++
13.2.0 or 12.3.0.
The testcase is based on GetOneCharToken() of V8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #20 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #14)
> This is just the same as other unspecified things like converting an
> out-of-range value from floating-point to integer.
No, because when GCC's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111651
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is:
It is more effective when -ftree-vrp is active (the default for -O2 and above)
but a subset of instances are issued even without optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #45 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I confirm that I no longer have this problem with
> gcc-12 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-12
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/12/lto-wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
Bug ID: 111659
Summary: document that -Wstrict-flex-arrays depends on
-ftree-vrp
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111658
Bug ID: 111658
Summary: test-function-bodies fails to find functions with
single-letter names
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
What I am trying to say in comment #3 is both GCC and clang's constant folding
is different from what the instruction divsd does in the end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #5)
> > The match pattern which causes the issue:
> > (simplify
> > /* signbit(x) -> 0 if x is nonnegative. */
> > (SIGNBIT tree_expr_nonnegative_p@0)
> > {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #5 from Paul Eggert ---
> I am thinking this is all under specified really ...
Although it is indeed unspecified whether 0.0/0.0 yields -NaN or +NaN, it is
well understood that negating a floating point value flips its sign bit. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||79649
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Bug ID: 111657
Summary: Memory copy with structure assignment from named
address space is not working
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111651
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/workspaces/booxy/main.cpp: In function ‘boost::asio::awaitable
make(boost::asio::any_io_executor)’:
/workspaces/booxy/main.cpp:19:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] Wrong |[11/12 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cda1992a56779e5c60a70f251542a6f662fdfa60
commit r13-7928-gcda1992a56779e5c60a70f251542a6f662fdfa60
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111645
--- Comment #4 from Steven Munroe ---
Actually shift/rotate intrinsic: ,vec_rl, vec_rlmi, vec_rlnm, vec_sl, vec_sr,
vec_sra
Support vector __int128 as required for the PowerISA 3.1 POWER vector
shift/rotate quadword instructions
But:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111656
Bug ID: 111656
Summary: Recent build failure with clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111650
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Reduced a bit more.
---
module object;
ref V require(K, V)(ref V[K] aa, K key, lazy V value);
struct Root
{
ulong[3] f;
}
Root[ulong] roots;
Root getRoot(int fd, ulong rootID)
{
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110386
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5fa95a3569f6ee66697876a3a380fef1b333f3d
commit r13-7927-gb5fa95a3569f6ee66697876a3a380fef1b333f3d
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111639
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Anything that doesn't work on avr should be considered a bug, like any other
target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111639
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not particularly, I just want to be able to bootstrap on avr with
--enable-libstdcxx
It works pretty well already, especially with the -ffreestanding changes in gcc
13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55923
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
>
> Note GCC and clang even disagree on the first testcase but agree with the
> second one.
Oh and the C and C++ front-end even disagree with each other.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111429
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://no-color.org/
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase which shows a related issue:
```
double t = 0.0/0.0;
int
main ()
{
double x = 0.0/0.0;
return __builtin_signbit (x) != __builtin_signbit (t);
}
```
And another one:
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to simon from comment #6)
> (In reply to simon from comment #1)
> > Further:
> >
> > $ GNAT_FILE_NAME_CASE_SENSITIVE=1 gnatmake -c p*.ads
> > gcc -c páck3.ads
> > páck3.ads:1:10: warning: file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The match pattern which causes the issue:
(simplify
/* signbit(x) -> 0 if x is nonnegative. */
(SIGNBIT tree_expr_nonnegative_p@0)
{ integer_zero_node; })
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Bug ID: 111655
Summary: wrong code generated for __builtin_signbit on x86-64
-O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111639
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
May I ask, are you working on getting libstdc++ to work for avr?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654
Bug ID: 111654
Summary: Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111653
Bug ID: 111653
Summary: make bootstrap4 fails for -fchecking=2 code generation
changes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110951
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20231001 (experimental) (GCC)
[506] %
[506] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[507] %
[507] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[508] % ./a.out
Aborted
[509] %
[509] % cat small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111651
--- Comment #1 from Yunus Ayar ---
Created attachment 56021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56021=edit
Output of g++ -save-temps; I compressed it because it is 7.5 MB big and would
exceed the file size limit
I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111651
Bug ID: 111651
Summary: Specific syntax with C++ 20 designated initializers
and coroutines breaks
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111646
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to vishwambhar.rathi from comment #4)
> I am not using any optimization flag in compiling. Where should I post about
> this bug? Thanks.
I don't know because maybe this is a Glibc issue or a QEMU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111639
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So then we do need to fix the autoconf macros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111639
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Which versions of avr-libc are supported with gcc?
The versions are only very loosely coupled. Anything from AVR-LibC v1.8 on (or
maybe even older)
76 matches
Mail list logo
