https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111885
Bug ID: 111885
Summary: source code after "required from here" note sometimes
printed strangely
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This could either be wrong code for not doing the promotion or just missing
> the libgcc functions (which could be implemented as doing the promotion).
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64 x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unsigned char no longer |[13/14 Regression] unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
--- Comment #4 from Tom Honermann ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Thanks, I can test
Thank you. That change looks right. My apologies for introducing the
regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79021, which changed state.
Bug 79021 Summary: attribute noreturn on function template ignored in generic
lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > This could either be wrong code for not doing the promotion or just missing
> > the libgcc functions (which could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Jakub wrote that code, but it looks like we just want the explicit
casts. I can add those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why doesn't it fail with -std=c++23 though? Was there some C++26 change I'm
not aware of?
In the to_chars cases, we already use float(__value) casts in the
_Float16/__bfloat16_t cases (but others too), so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Did you mean like the following? I have no idea if that's correct but is
suppresses the warnings I see.
In C++23 I don't see the code in the .ii file at all, so it doesn't warn.
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|runtime Segmentation fault |[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
for the record an __fp16 implementation works as expected;
* when the target does not support +fp16, the code-gen promotes to float and
does the multiply with __mulsc3
* when the target supports +fp16, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ICE: in |[14 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111645
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm going to guess this was introduced by the char8_t changes ("C:
Implement C2X N2653 char8_t and UTF-8 string literal changes", commit
703837b2cc8ac03c53ac7cc0fb1327055acaebd2).
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108238
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one which is a little more complex for templated function too:
```
template
[[gnu::returns_nonnull]]
auto f() {
return new T(42);
}
auto g(void)
{
return f();
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The second case will be solved by updating the patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574892.html
For the review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574948.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Bug ID: 111884
Summary: unsigned char no longer aliases anything under
-std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111850
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is that we cannot CSE a VLA typed "load" (whatever that is) to a
constnant.
char arr[] = {1, 2, 7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 3, 1
, 0, 1, 2, 4, 4, 9, 9, 1, 2, 7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 3,
1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31
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=111875
Bug ID: 111875
Summary: With -Og ubsan check inserted even though
__builtin_assume_aligned guarantees no UB
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
Bug ID: 111873
Summary: runtime Segmentation fault with '-O3
-fno-code-hoisting -fno-early-inlining -fno-tree-fre
-fno-tree-loop-optimize -fno-tree-pre'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 56149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56149=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #6 from Alberto Luaces ---
Thanks a lot for the guidance. This is the backtrace of the last call to
gcc_assert() that makes it crash.
It says something about a non-recursive function likely calling itself. I will
inspect my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111874
Bug ID: 111874
Summary: Missed mask_fold_left_plus with AVX512
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579
commit r12-9930-g6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111874
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
For integer, We have _mm512_mask_reduce_add_epi32 defined as
extern __inline int
__attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__))
_mm512_mask_reduce_add_epi32 (__mmask16 __U, __m512i __A)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #21 from Kewen Lin ---
For optimized IR:
a$raw$3_220 = D.39813.rawD.30221[3];
vect_a_raw_4_70.539_1584 = MEM [(short intD.20
*) + 8B];
_1640 = a$raw$0_221 & 255;
_1649 = a$raw$1_74 & 255;
_1658 = a$raw$2_264 & 255;
_52
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Maybe since it was in the libgomp testsuite you missed it when you tested
> your patch.
I usually find that compiling all the C,C++ and Fortran code
in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
yes, patch was tested on both aarch64 and x86, but I did not test libgomp
indeed.
In any case, waiting for regression run to finish and will submit patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
Bug ID: 111876
Summary: aarch64: Wrong code for bf16 complex mul/div when the
target has +fp16 support.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #17 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> The issue is that we cannot CSE a VLA typed "load" (whatever that is) to a
> constnant.
>
> char arr[] = {1, 2, 7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 3, 1
> , 0, 1, 2, 4, 4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
--- Comment #2 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
A reduced testcase:
struct a {
short b;
};
int d;
const struct a c;
void e(short x) {}
void f(short x) {}
int g(const struct a i) {return 0;}
void h(const struct a i) {
d = g(i);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111875
--- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl ---
I found out that this is caused by the copy_prop pass. With -Og, an instance of
copy_prop runs after the fold_builtins pass but before the sanopt pass. The
fold_builtins pass changes the statement p_2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Bug ID: 111877
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed: PHI node with
wrong VUSE on edge from BB 25 with -O -fno-tree-sink
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
>
> --- Comment #19 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #23 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22)
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
> >
> > --- Comment #21 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
With RVV you have intrinsic calls in GIMPLE so nothing to optimize:
vbool8_t fn ()
{
vbool8_t vmask;
vuint8m1_t vand_m;
vuint8m1_t varr;
uint8_t arr[32];
[local count: 1073741824]:
arr =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111874
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> For integer, We have _mm512_mask_reduce_add_epi32 defined as
>
> extern __inline int
> __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
Patch posted https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633569.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111879
Bug ID: 111879
Summary: No gather BB vectorization for
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
I see the mems properly get their base adjusted:
(insn 384 383 0 (set (mem/c:V2DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 112 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int 16 [0x10])) [7 MEM[(struct Vec128D.30433 *)_10]+0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111866
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
ok, so the crash looks like it's due to rgroups_control being empty during
prologue peeling.
It looks like the loop isn't masked so LOOP_VINFO_LENS (loop_vinfo) is being
used in this case, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Bug ID: 111878
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: in get_loop_exit_edges, at
cfgloop.cc:1204 with -O3 -fgraphite-identity
-fsave-optimization-record
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
>
> --- Comment #21 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
//binary-trunk-r14-4743-20231019111223-g947fb34a165-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20231019 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
>
> --- Comment #23 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:beab5b95c581452adeb26efd59ae84a61fb3b429
commit r14-4745-gbeab5b95c581452adeb26efd59ae84a61fb3b429
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 31, which changed state.
Bug 31 Summary: SLP of gathers incomplete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24)
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
> >
> > --- Comment #23 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82335
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:202a214d6859d91af5a95aa989321c5d2173c40a
commit r14-4747-g202a214d6859d91af5a95aa989321c5d2173c40a
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19cc4b9d74940f29c961e2a5a8b1fa84992d3d30
commit r14-4748-g19cc4b9d74940f29c961e2a5a8b1fa84992d3d30
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
A less strict patch would remember whether all accesses to the decls coalesced
have accesses compatible with a common effective type (just checking whether
all decls have the same type isn't enough, even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #19 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> With RVV you have intrinsic calls in GIMPLE so nothing to optimize:
>
> vbool8_t fn ()
> {
> vbool8_t vmask;
> vuint8m1_t vand_m;
> vuint8m1_t varr;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #21 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #20)
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
> >
> > --- Comment #19 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4
commit r14-4746-g217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82335
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
>
> --- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111875
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
CCP propagates the alignment here.(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #1)
> I found out that this is caused by the copy_prop pass. With -Og, an instance
> of copy_prop runs after the fold_builtins pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107954
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Just note this had various follow-ups.
> r13-2658
> r13-2709
> r13-2891
> at least.
So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
Bug ID: 111880
Summary: [9/10/11/12/13] False positive warning of obsolescent
COMMON block with Fortran submodule
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:00:27AM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> It says something about a non-recursive function likely calling itself. I
> will
> inspect my source, even it is a bit too big.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 04:00:10PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation
> stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
Bug ID: 111882
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:940
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99087
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like this was broken when bitfield expansion was added to ifcvt (I think
r13-3219-g25413fdb2ac24933214123e24ba165026452a6f2 ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111881
Bug ID: 111881
Summary: analyzer: ICE in ensure_closed, at
analyzer/constraint-manager.cc:130 with -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #16 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 56153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56153=edit
C source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111466
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #8 from Alberto Luaces ---
No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation
stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of the compiler structures
are still optimized.
Nevertheless I did what you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #19)
> Created attachment 56154 [details]
> C source code
>
> You might like to have a go at getting the attached code working:
>
> $ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
