https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed optimization of loop |Missing scalar evolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112863
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
which Xcode version produces this?
on Darwin23 with XC15.1 I get clean obj-c++ results
(but we should omit the duplicates anyway)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> The C++11 standard explicitly allows to use rand() as the random source for
> random_shuffle, thus this is not a bug but an enhancement.
It doesn't just allow it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r14-2097-g4dfeb1cd8dfca234186216d891ec8f46235c3a14
was a trunk commit, was that backported to 13 branch too (or was it fixed there
some other way)?
In any case, guess we should include the testcase into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113410
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=113424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112862
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
this appears to be fixed; I get clean fortran testsuite results on (x86_64)
Darwin21 and Darwin23. Please could you check and either close this or post
your Xcode version, configure line and OS version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112573
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db4e496aadf1d7ab1c5af24410394d1551ddd3f0
commit r14-7284-gdb4e496aadf1d7ab1c5af24410394d1551ddd3f0
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108111
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Arthur Cohen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2046aec032f743023a5e353735255d951e2e54d6
commit r14-7347-g2046aec032f743023a5e353735255d951e2e54d6
Author: Marc Poulhiès
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Arthur Cohen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:747d9a92ddb74fa7ba1bb6ca0079abd5eaa38791
commit r14-7504-g747d9a92ddb74fa7ba1bb6ca0079abd5eaa38791
Author: TieWay59
Date: Wed Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112684
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Reproducers for trunk and supported releases:
Trunk:https://godbolt.org/z/fz8o3c7h6
GCC 13.2: https://godbolt.org/z/bnd55zn7K
GCC 12.3: https://godbolt.org/z/qdf54h6nf
GCC 11.4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113035
--- Comment #1 from Edwin Lu ---
Created attachment 57106
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57106=edit
testsuite failures for rv64 bitmanip and vector as of r14-7474-g7d8de1ca4a7
Double checked for execution failures on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ugh. This seems to be by design.
The error message
Error: Too many arguments in call to ‘atan’ at (1)
is queued by intrinsic.cc(sort_actual) and appears to take
precedence over an error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113429
Bug ID: 113429
Summary: RISC-V: SPEC2017 527 cam4 miscompilation in autovec
VLA build
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113429
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created attachment 57107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57107=edit
Reduced cam4 test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110794
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc5fc15d5a16669a0995a3fdc98d9704c6199022
commit r14-8160-gdc5fc15d5a16669a0995a3fdc98d9704c6199022
Author: John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113429
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
Here's my analysis as to whats going on in vsetvl pass.
Reduced Test with annotated BBs.
.globl __a_MOD_f
.type __a_MOD_f, @function
__a_MOD_f:
...
ble s1,zero,.L49
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With the patch at the end of this message and this source code,
program foo
integer(8) x
real(8) y, z
x = 1
y = x
z = atan(y,x)
print *, z
end
I get
% gfcx -c a.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107201
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113418
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
[Phew, why do we allow empty reports? Just mishit "enter" and then this.]
The vect_* target selectors are evaluated with the options in
DEFAULT_VECTCFLAGS in effect, but these options are not automatically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Reduced bisect range seems to be g:2c11662391bafd74c9d19bf7626b7bcef41c1323 ..
g:9e0d5db3e04afd2d030ace4ccb5c1af5e9f05a8f, which is 462 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113417
Bug ID: 113417
Summary: POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED needs to be address-space
specific
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113395
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Without fully lowering this on GIMPLE we could substitute the representative
for the bitfield member in the MEM_EXPR and adjust adjust_address_1 to
instead of using attrs.size to constrain the extent of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107201
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
As a work around, one can use an adjusted device-specs file with the
avrlibc_devicelib removed. The spec looks like this:
*avrlibc_devicelib:
%{!nodevicelib:-lavr128da32}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Bisect range seems to be g:e03a0a4d73a478928b26213363fa5dbb9fc8695f ..
g:4e1914625dec4aa09a5671c6294e877dbf4518f5, which is 1850 commits.
I will continue the bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #4 from Donald Buczek ---
Great, thank you!
I wonder, if the related missed optimization opportunity should also be
reported.
#include
int f(void) {
char **vec = calloc(1, sizeof(char *));
if (vec) {
// *vec =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113419
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=113402
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I'm OK with renaming (but then some namespace prefix would be nice, at least
two underscores, but __gcc_ might be better)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
foundBugs $ ../results.20220116/bin/gcc -w -O2 bug998.c
foundBugs $ ./a.out
checksum = 77A231E6
foundBugs $ ../results.20220116/bin/gcc -w -O3 bug998.c
foundBugs $ ./a.out
checksum = 77A231E6
foundBugs $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> it is an optimisation, yes - but as Richi points out, if we change this it
> will affect ABI - so it is ideal to do this before the first release that
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113419
Bug ID: 113419
Summary: SRA should replace some aggregate copies by load/store
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107201
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebdc3aae0a4705d0b72b69a37fdafa5613343d5d
commit r12-10100-gebdc3aae0a4705d0b72b69a37fdafa5613343d5d
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113406
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
strub should be honoring aggregate_value_p, see e.g. PR112941
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, normally libgcc.a symbols are made .hidden (and that is the case of even
these 2 functions). So, when not using -shared-libgcc (implicitly or
explicitly), every shared library or binary uses its own
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
it is an optimisation, yes - but as Richi points out, if we change this it will
affect ABI - so it is ideal to do this before the first release that includes
it?
- IIUC Jakub's suggestion:
- remove the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113418
Bug ID: 113418
Summary: Use of vect_* targetsin tests out of vect directories
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
--- Comment #16 from gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
>
> --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Gaius Mulley from comment #14)
>> Ah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Current range seems to be g:54a5f478487a955c3ffaec3e9164a72599bc1cfb ..
g:1edfc8f2d3307a3ffa077a605f432832d7715462, which is 4 commits.
Of those 4, this one
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Or put it in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so.1?
Yes, that's what I came up with as well (conceptually, not a patch, and I only
have a background in ELF), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113422
Bug ID: 113422
Summary: Missed optimizations in the presence of pointer chains
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113373
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=113409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57102|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113425
Bug ID: 113425
Summary: gcc.dg/fold-copysign-1.c fails on arm since
g:7cbe41d35e6
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113425
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
check_effective_target_ifn_copysign needs to be updated for arm basically.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113406
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 57099 [details]
> > gcc14-pr113406.patch
> >
> > Seems ipa-strub.cc contains a copy of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> The C++11 standard explicitly allows to use rand() as the random source for
> random_shuffle, thus this is not a bug but an enhancement.
>
> As random_shuffle is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
Anonymous changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113427
Bug ID: 113427
Summary: ICE: tree check: C++23 `this auto` lambda + multiple
(ambiguous) inheritance from closure type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Anonymous from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > dom3 :
> > ```
>
> Could you please explain on how you to record this trace? Is there any
> specific compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113427
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Bug ID: 113424
Summary: lim fails to notice possible aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, this is an infinite loop with no forward progress so that might be the
difference between c and c++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Note that the default C long double is what is controlled by
--with-long-double-128 and --with-long-double-format, those configs do not tell
you
whether using __ieee128 with -mabi=ieeelongdouble will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113426
Bug ID: 113426
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113406
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 57099 [details]
> gcc14-pr113406.patch
>
> Seems ipa-strub.cc contains a copy of the expand_thunk I've fixed some weeks
> ago.
But the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113374
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=110251
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Anonymous from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > dom3 :
> > > ```
> >
> > Could you please explain on how you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112684
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
This happens also with --help=c:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc --help=c -fdiagnostics-generate-patch testcase.c
The following options are supported by the language C:
--all-warnings Same as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113372
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
commit r14-7274-g1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
commit r14-7274-g1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111422
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
commit r14-7274-g1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110115
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
commit r14-7274-g1251d3957de04dc9b023a23c09400217e13deadb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matheus-catarino at hotmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90999
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112577
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113420
Bug ID: 113420
Summary: risc-v vector: ICE when using C compiler compile C++
RVV intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113408
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-7274-20240116114934-g1251d3957de-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240116 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> # q_11 = PHI <0B(2), removed_return.14_14(D)(4),
> removed_return.14_14(D)(3)>
> _12 = *q_11;
>
>
> WTF
Well, _12 is not used anywhere, so the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113411
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
In the current implementation, as far as I understand it, avoiding multiple
objects is just an optimization, not a correctness issue. STB_GNU_UNIQUE is for
correctness (although I don't think we'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112577
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112577
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod ---
Confirmed. Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113406
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=113403
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Or put it in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so.1?
>
> Yes, that's what I came up with as well (conceptually, not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113408
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly adjusted:
struct A { _BitInt(713) b; } g;
int f;
void
foo (void)
{
struct A j = g;
if (j.b)
f = 0;
}
The problem is that SRA decides to change:
j = g;
_1 = j.b;
if (_1 != 0)
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113397
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113397
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf420e7b98d845323fad8280aea4ede60d3d96fe
commit r14-7275-gcf420e7b98d845323fad8280aea4ede60d3d96fe
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112375
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belagod at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112375
--- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109203
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, Patrick. I have a patch for LWG 3865 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
I have submitted a slightly modified patch to the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6cyu1e9kw.fsf@/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113423
Bug ID: 113423
Summary: Missed Optimization: potential redundant load
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
