https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #5)
> > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one
> > point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
If anything gnu_printf should be used instead for _bfd_error_handler and that
would be a binutils issue and reported there ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one
> point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then.
Sorry I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|normal |enhancement
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Missed DSE in simple code |Missed DSE in simple code
||due to other stores being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
Looks like it is on purpose:
C++0x raw strings are supported for C++ and for C with -std=gnu99.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114764
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG also accepts it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114771
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG also accepts this. so 3 out of 4 compilers out accept it. Maybe there is a
defect report ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114763
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114763
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note only the second case has if's 2 sides which are the same;
it is basically `a ? b : (c ? d : d)`.
While the first case you have `a ? b : (c ? d : b)` which is not supposed to
warn about at all because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114761
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is this based on real code or you just was looking at the differences between
gcc and clang here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112976
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Will submit both patches once GCC 15 opens up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112976
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57979=edit
Patch 2/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112976
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57978=edit
Patch 1/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112976
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note gimple_assign_nontemporal_move_p is just for non temporal stores. There is
no code handling non-temporal loads (which do exist on some targets, aarch64
for an example).
I will also add a comment to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Brecht Sanders from comment #10)
> What is the status of GCC support for aarch64-w64-mingw32 ?
>
> I just tried GCC 14 snapshot 20240414 and it looks like it's still not
> supported.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Blocks|
at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-17
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this linker relaxation code could be more forgiving here and not producing
"wrong-code" but GCC should be fixed still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically what is happening is the linker relaxation code is turning it into
something which is wrong. But GCC's invalid use of %lo(n+4)(a5) with a
(invalid) corresponding %hi(n) is confusing the relaxation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at rivosinc dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
lui a5,%hi(n)
lw a2,%lo(n)(a5)
lw a3,%lo(n+4)(a5)
vs:
lui a5,%hi(.LANCHOR0)
addia5,a5,%lo(.LANCHOR0)
lw a2,0(a5)
lw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22348
Bug 22348 depends on bug 23096, which changed state.
Bug 23096 Summary: Wrong folding for FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23096
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57968=edit
Patch set that I will be submitting once GCC 15 opens up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Gejoe from comment #4)
> Thanks Andrew for the info.
>
> So, does this mean that every program which was compiled earlier with one
> step (ie. gcc --coverage srcfile.c) of gcc/g++ will have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> With the example in PR 86698 with the patches I will be posting, gcc now
> does:
> ```
> ;; Function f (null)
> ;; enabled by -tree-original
>
>
> {
> int x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
With the example in PR 86698 with the patches I will be posting, gcc now does:
```
;; Function f (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
{
int x = z++ , y;
DECL_EXPR;
return x;
}
```
I am still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86698
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The semicolon comes from print_declaration So this is just a dup of bug
> 23872 in the end.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 23872 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |14.0
Summary|libcpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114748
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I went back to the gcc 9.1.0 release and aclocal there didn't change and
didn't have the include for override.m4 . I am trying to figure out where this
changed ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114748
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The last time aclocal.m4 had an include for override.m4 was
r9-3776-g22e052725189a4 . Are you sure you are using the correct
autoconf/automake version?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114330
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The most annoying part of this is the struct compiler is initialized by
*/lang-specs.h and it looks like I missed one and the error message is not so
obvious where the issue is.
at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testing the removal of the code from the driver.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104707
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=114741
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #2)
> It looks like the underlying bug is '^' being incorrectly treated like '?'
> in record_reg_classes (which is never used during reload). Fixing that
> results in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114050
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> > -fexcess-precision does affect constants.
>
> Indeed, and this is a bug, as -fexcess-precision=fast was
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114741
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu.ojxq8 at dralias dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114050
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #11 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjh at schilling dot dk
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The "fix" was to how to build to be able to use gcov. Basically you build to an
object file first and then link the object file to get the old behavior and the
behavior that gcov expects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Does -fno-cost-model affect the behavior here?
Sorry -fno-vect-cost-model.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does -fno-cost-model affect the behavior here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gejoed at rediffmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #9)
> The related bug claims to be fixed in trunk. I can still reproduce mine in
> gcc-14, from Debian RC-Buggy.
Pedwarn warnings were not fixed ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Also note clang has the same behavior .
ICC does too.
MSVC actually gets it right (need to use /std:clatest) and change time_t into
long since time_t there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because the inner _Generic gets selected first and then outter one is selected.
Also note clang has the same behavior .
Note the syntax error is just a2i should not have a comma in it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114730
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it turns out before GCC 9, using enum vectors would ICE (PR 87286).
It was asked then if we should reject them but there was no answer to question
that but rather just fixing the ICE alone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Take this C23 code:
```
#define vect16 __attribute__((vector_size(16)))
enum tt : long {enumv};
extern vect16 enum tt t;
```
Currently GCC accepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66924
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the "parse error" part of the diagnostic is no longer there on the trunk
(for GCC 14).
clang produces:
```
:6:46: error: non-type template argument is not a constant expression
6 | auto f = []
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95913
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57954=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 102931, which changed state.
Bug 102931 Summary: ICE explicit lambda call operator without template keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102931
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 102693, which changed state.
Bug 102693 Summary: ICE in tsubst related to lambdas as template default
parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98500
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-22 00:00:00 |2024-4-15
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101027
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|requires { T{}; } wrongly |requires { T{}; } wrongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willisahershey at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is { does not gets balanced in the preprocessor only ().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
101 - 200 of 34230 matches
Mail list logo
