https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
>
> --- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> >Loop body is likely going to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114125
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
>
> --- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114125
Bug ID: 114125
Summary: Support vcond_mask_qiqi and friends.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I noticed once I add V4QI and V2HI support to the aarch64 backend, this code
gets even worse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> With my patch for V4QI, we still don't get the best code:
> vect_perm_even_271 = VEC_PERM_EXPR 4, 6 }>;
> vect_perm_even_273 = VEC_PERM_EXPR 4, 6 }>;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The whole PERM<0,2,1,3> shows up a few times in many other places too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
With my patch for V4QI, we still don't get the best code:
vect_perm_even_271 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ;
vect_perm_even_273 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ;
vect_perm_even_275 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ;
_275={_264[0], _264[2],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either tree parmdef = ssa_default_def (cfun, parm) is NULL, or has_zero_uses
(parmdef).
Not sure if has_zero_uses will work properly after some bbs are converted from
GIMPLE to RTL, but maybe it will, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
>Loop body is likely going to simplify further, this is difficult
>to guess, we just decrease the result by 1/3. */
>
This is introduced by r0-68074-g91a01f21abfe19
/* Estimate number of insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70582
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e8eac3dea017eae739eb79d540887bb2cf1dc9f
commit r14-9190-g8e8eac3dea017eae739eb79d540887bb2cf1dc9f
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110411
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by jeevitha :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8c1c2b6c220bc3518c11e11af5a8c6ca1cdf7e8
commit r12-10181-ge8c1c2b6c220bc3518c11e11af5a8c6ca1cdf7e8
Author: Jeevitha
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> The original case is a little different from the one in PR.
But the issue is similar, after cunrolli, GCC failed to vectorize the outer
loop.
The interesting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113728
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
The original case is a little different from the one in PR.
It comes from ggml
#include
#include
typedef uint16_t ggml_fp16_t;
static float table_f32_f16[1 << 16];
inline static float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104255
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114123
--- Comment #3 from Yaxun Liu ---
So, since vector has a ctor that accepts initializer list, that ctor is
favored over its copy ctor. With the initializer-list ctor, a is converted to
A(a) first, then {A(a)} is passed to that ctor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114124
Bug ID: 114124
Summary: Rejected use of function parameter as non-type
template parameter in trailing-return-type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114123
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264#c14 where Jason is
pinging the CWG about the interactions here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114123
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think GCC's behavior here is correct, see PR 83264 .
Specifically https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264#c11 .
And https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1467.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113284
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #8)
> The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
Bill, can you double check our testsuite results and close this if it's now
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114123
Bug ID: 114123
Summary: list-initialization with a single element
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113728
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> This has been worked around in glibc. Should we close this issue?
As the bug reporter and given glibc now has a workaround, I think you're fine
to close this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114098
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23f4aa6c68e24a76d3784bcfdad5a53e46cd8f95
commit r12-10180-g23f4aa6c68e24a76d3784bcfdad5a53e46cd8f95
Author: H.J. Lu
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114098
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b3ecdf4fb13471b69d80583e10c5baedfe84d7c
commit r13-8365-g2b3ecdf4fb13471b69d80583e10c5baedfe84d7c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114087
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111409
Omar Sandoval changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #29 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> Yes, so it is the backend that told function.cc that there is a parameter
> save area and it should be adding REG_EQUIV notes. So, the idea would be
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114028
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114122
Bug ID: 114122
Summary: RISC-V: poor code generation in calling convention
with vlen > 4096
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/list/?series=31343
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111305
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #26 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57548
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57548=edit
testcase failing with -O -m32
This testcase does not need -mavx512f, but -m32 instead:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And it works even with -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-slp-vectorize and
doesn't work with -O2 -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize so will
need to look at what SLP vectorization does here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> As an aside we at -O3 has:
> _87 = .USUBC (_30, 3, 0);
> _93 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_87>;
> _88 = .USUBC (0, 0, _93);
> _29 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_88>;
> _187 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed. And -O2 -fno-tree-vectorize works.
I've changed it to
unsigned a, b, c, d, e;
unsigned _BitInt(256) f;
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned short
bswap16 (int t)
{
return __builtin_bswap16 (t);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
As an aside we at -O3 has:
_87 = .USUBC (_30, 3, 0);
_93 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_87>;
_88 = .USUBC (0, 0, _93);
_29 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_88>;
_187 = .USUBC (0, 0, _29);
_217 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_187>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114118
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think we want to enable all the functions etc. because those
aren't expected to be present before C++23. But the types like _Float32 are
already present, and that seems fine. I just think we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Bug ID: 114121
Summary: wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114120
Bug ID: 114120
Summary: add reduction with promotion and then truncation
poorly vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114119
Bug ID: 114119
Summary: add reduction promotion from unsigned char to unsigned
not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RFE: -fanalyzer should |RFE: -fanalyzer should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114118
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114012
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f71e801ad0bb1f620334aadbd7c99cc4efe6309
commit r14-9186-g2f71e801ad0bb1f620334aadbd7c99cc4efe6309
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hjl.tools at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114118
Bug ID: 114118
Summary: std::is_floating_point<_Float32> and
__is_floating<_Float32> are false in C++20 and older
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1931c40364bb9fb0a7c4b650917e3ac0e88bf6f4
commit r14-9185-g1931c40364bb9fb0a7c4b650917e3ac0e88bf6f4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe this is something that could be done during isel to undo what was done in
phiopt ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113257
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57546=edit
gcc 14 test results
$ gcc-13 --version
gcc-13 (Gentoo 13.2.1_p20240210 p13) 13.2.1 20240210
Copyright (C) 2023 Free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. Not to mention, one can call backtrace even if -g0; you just don't get
nice names for the addresses. Without the patch you get crashes in the
unwinder when doing backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 57545 [details]
> > gcc14-pr114116.patch
> >
> > This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 57545 [details]
> gcc14-pr114116.patch
>
> This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the small testcase, back to the
> expected backtrace there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57545=edit
gcc14-pr114116.patch
This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the small testcase, back to the
expected backtrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 57544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57544=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pto at linuxbog dot dk
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Bug ID: 114117
Summary: -Wno-foo handling
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114042
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77576915cfd26e603aba5295dfdac54a5545f5f2
commit r14-9184-g77576915cfd26e603aba5295dfdac54a5545f5f2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #20 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Petr Skocik from comment #19)
> IMO(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
>
> > In practice most _Noreturn functions are abort, exit, ..., i.e. they are
> > only executed one time so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe introduce TYPE_NO_CALLEE_SAVED_REGISTERS_EXCEPT_BP or something similar?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66874
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Pretty sure my issue is indeed PR114116.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114086
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Unfortunately doing the ((682 >> x) & 1) to x & 1 optimization in match.pd
> isn't possible, we can only use global ranges there and we need path
> specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
Bug ID: 114116
Summary: [14 Regression] Broken backtraces in bootstrapped
x86_64 gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we can automatically consider that when handling the ifunc attribute?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The obvious workaround is to mark the ifunc_resolver with
no_profile_instrument_function attribute since is only ever called once and
really does not need to be PGO'ed anyways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is the use of TLS inside an ifunc resolver which seems like causing issues
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114104
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114099
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb68e2cac1283f731a3a979cb714621afb1ddfcc
commit r14-9182-gfb68e2cac1283f731a3a979cb714621afb1ddfcc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114068
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8293df8019adfffae3384cb6fb9cb6f496fe8608
commit r14-9181-g8293df8019adfffae3384cb6fb9cb6f496fe8608
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> One of the xz developers, Jia Tan, has kindly minimised it to not need
> BIND_NOW. I've adapted it a bit to cleanup flags and warnings.
(oops, sorry, this one does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
The reproducer succeeds for me with Clang 17.0.6, but fails for me with GCC
10..14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
One of the xz developers, Jia Tan, has kindly minimised it to not need
BIND_NOW. I've adapted it a bit to cleanup flags and warnings.
I can reproduce it with the following, at least:
```
#!/bin/sh
gcc-14 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
Bug ID: 114115
Summary: xz-utils segfaults when built with -fprofile-generate
(bad interaction between IFUNC and binding?)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107855
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Hmm, the test contains
>
> "/* { dg-additional-options "-Ofast -mavx" { target avx_runtime } } */"
>
> So it passes on AVX capable native builds,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Bug ID: 114114
Summary: Internal compiler error on function-local conditional
noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
