https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49395
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
line 8 is rejected by clang and MSVC also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Confirmed. This ICEs on the trunk (but I don't think it is a regression as
> the assert is a gcc_checking_assert).
>
> The ICE:
>
> :12:28: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I should note clang accepts the code.
But EDG does not.
While MSVC accepts it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57005
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC also rejects it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 113363, which changed state.
Bug 113363 Summary: ICE on ASSOCIATE and unlimited polymorphic function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If we do not care too much about TYPE_CANONICAL being correct in this case
anyway, we could turn off the test and add a condition flag_isoc23 as a
precaution in the FE to not risk any other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111872
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87713
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114598
Bug ID: 114598
Summary: [GCC-14] Miscompilation of `#pragma omp parallel for`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #13)
> Original testcase is fixed for allocate with mold as well as for allocate
> with source, and some test coverage is in r12-5767.
>
> There are remaining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca56b43105fc09021ec445f1978a17cd85ae5e0c
commit r14-9794-gca56b43105fc09021ec445f1978a17cd85ae5e0c
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114578
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Time variable usr sys wall
GGC
phase setup: 0.00 ( 0%) 0.03 ( 0%) 0.10 ( 0%)
1903k ( 0%)
phase parsing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114578
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code has 3 huge arrays which is definitely a canidate for `#embed` usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114594
Bug ID: 114594
Summary: Issues seen with -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak on
htop/XUtils.c: String_split
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||94404
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||o_kniemeyer at maxon dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> I guess I should add the test.
Though cpp23/lookup2.C does look close to this testcase here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66124
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This preprocessed source works on the trunk on x86_64 with a small change.
Replace:
typedef char *va_list;
with
typedef __builtin_va_list va_list;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113986
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27b6d081f68528435066be2234c7329e31e0e84f
commit r14-9796-g27b6d081f68528435066be2234c7329e31e0e84f
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks, I will bootstrap and test the patch on x86_64 and submit it
for review then.
Can I ask you, can you please modify the testcase so that it does not
use printf but simply calls __builtin_abort in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #25 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
Hi Matthias,
to get good results on average (all FP-types: (B)FP16..FP128,
scalar/vectorized(SIMD)/parallel/...) this algorithm seems to me (so far) to be
suitable:
template
inline constexpr Type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114597
Bug ID: 114597
Summary: [GCC-14] Miscompilation of pointer assignment with
inline assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57378
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with checking enabled we get an ICE:
:23:17: error: Two symbols with same comdat_group are not linked by the
same_comdat_group list.
23 | { return foo(); }
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114595
Bug ID: 114595
Summary: rtl-expand emit redundant store for bitwise-and
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114377
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:801e82acd6b4f0cf863529875947e394899ea7b9
commit r14-9795-g801e82acd6b4f0cf863529875947e394899ea7b9
Author: centurion
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70667
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So if we have (note the extra f which has no arguments):
```
template struct A { alignas (N) int a; };
template struct B { char c; };
template int f (int (*)[sizeof (A)]) { return 0; }
template int f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86748
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Richard: Can you please update Known to work?
Looks to be the wrong bug #.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.5.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
Bug ID: 114596
Summary: [OpenMP] "declare variant" scoring seems incorrect for
construct selectors
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114578
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The real way to fix this is to have `#embed` supported for both C++ and C and
move this code over to use that instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.4.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 85570, which changed state.
Bug 85570 Summary: Resolution of unqualified-id in member access involving
templates fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114595
--- Comment #1 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
gcc-4's result:
```
func_1():
movlg1(%rip), %eax
andl$1, %eax
movb%al, g2(%rip)
movl%eax, g3(%rip)
ret
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57883
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57883=edit
patch to add instrumentation as diagnostic aid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114598
wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.4.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karol.wozniak at linuxmail dot
org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #26 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
must of course be "... / scale".
How can I still edit posts?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114597
--- Comment #3 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
Thanks a lot, I have checked it out.
I'm still somewhat confused. Does the difference in compilation stem from GCC
interpreting "=m" and "=r" differently, leading it to assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114599
Bug ID: 114599
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in bitmap_set_bit(bitmap_head*, int)
(bitmap.cc:975) with -O2 -fcondition-coverage
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49395
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||arm-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #71 from Martin Jambor ---
I have sent the patch to the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6le5s25kl@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> I however wonder if we really guarantee to copy the paddings everywhere else
> then the total scalarization part?
> (i.e. in all paths through the RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70667
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
If we had:
```
int i = f<3>(nullptr);
```
clang, edg and MSVC also rejects it for the same reason as GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114594
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
The "leak" was fixed in htop by
https://github.com/htop-dev/htop/commit/62c2d820add3dadea7569af051d2afd804f08432
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Adjusted testcase:
union a {
unsigned short b;
int c;
signed short d;
};
int e, f = 1, g;
long h;
const int **i;
void j(union a k, int l, unsigned m) {
const int *a[100];
i = [0];
h = k.d;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-07-31 00:00:00 |2024-4-4
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57874|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114590
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
--- Comment #11 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not an expert on TYPE_CANONICAL, but my understanding is that non-NULL
TYPE_CANONICAL is just an optimization to speed up type comparisons (but it
seems c-typeck.cc doesn't actually use that, so it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
--- Comment #9 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #14 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Not an expert on TYPE_CANONICAL, but my understanding is that non-NULL
> TYPE_CANONICAL is just an optimization to speed up type comparisons (but it
> seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114555
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48530efdcccb154d3ed200246384edc162debc5d
commit r14-9783-g48530efdcccb154d3ed200246384edc162debc5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|std::basic_istream::ignore |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e152177b362143465e2b9d721ea632cae3f13445
commit r14-9781-ge152177b362143465e2b9d721ea632cae3f13445
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smcallis at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #10 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, this makes sense. I will try this. (I tried this approach already but I
did not get this work, probably because something I missed).
Otherwise one could try setting TYPE_CANONICAL only
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
