https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105988
rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu s390
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
So this has been broken since ZBS support was added in r12-4658-g4e1e0d79ecbe87
.
Removing TARGET_64BIT from the check in splittable_const_int_operand fixes this
testcase but I have not done any more testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh why oh why:
/* Check whether the constant can be loaded in a single
instruction with zbs extensions. */
if (TARGET_64BIT && TARGET_ZBS && SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND (INTVAL (op)))
return false;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even more reduced (this is why uninitialized variable was needed to form the
2048 :) ):
int g (void)
{
return 2048;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Shorter testcase (uninitialized variable is required for the reduced testcase;
I don't know why yet):
int g (long B_e)
{
long A_e;
if (A_e != 2047)
A_e -= 1023;
return A_e +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106531
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Waterman ---
The lengthy-ISA-name problem will be addressed to a great extent by the
forthcoming introduction of ISA profiles. Although I agree the status quo is
ugly and overly verbose, I recommend against introducin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106531
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Waterman from comment #1)
> It turns out there is no such thing as the B extension; it was a working
> name for a draft proposal a few years ago but wasn't (and presumably won't
> be) rat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with a non-modified sources fails with -O2 -march=rv32imac_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106531
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53414&action=edit
testcase from -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106532
Bug ID: 106532
Summary: riscv fails to build enabling ZBA/ZBB/ZBC/ZBS by
default for 32bit
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106531
Bug ID: 106531
Summary: -march=rv32iabmc should also enable zba, zbb, zbc, zbs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Klausner ---
For context, I stumbled over this because meson misdetects sincos on NetBSD.
https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/10641
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
The warning warns about dubious uses of std::move, so in the noMove case we
won't warn at all since there's no std::move.
In the withMove case, in C++20, we issue:
warning: moving a local object in a return s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106530
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Compare this to how aarch64 documentation is expands on what -march= options
are valid:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-Options
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106530
Bug ID: 106530
Summary: RISCV documentation for -march= is very lacking
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Klausner ---
Well, I can one-up that one:
int sincos();
int main() {
return sincos();
}
gives:
sincos.c:1:5: warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘sincos’;
expected ‘void(double, double *, double *)’ [-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Klausner ---
Created attachment 53413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53413&action=edit
.s file from save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Klausner ---
Created attachment 53412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53412&action=edit
.i file from save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
Bug ID: 106529
Summary: existence of sincos is assumed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #5 from S. Davis Herring ---
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but your example (as well as compiling
the original example with -std=c++20, which produces the same warning but now
calls Dest(Dest&&) in the noMove case) means tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to S. Davis Herring from comment #3)
> Does this need to be language-version-dependent, given
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1825r0.html (in
> C++20) and
> https://www.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #3 from S. Davis Herring ---
Does this need to be language-version-dependent, given
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1825r0.html (in
C++20) and
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2266r3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I've posted a patch for this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599342.html
Sorry it's taken so long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ulrich Drepper from comment #3)
> Again, more uniform and I'd say it should be encouraged to use std::get
> instead of .first / .second because it's compatible with std::tuple.
Which makes sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106514
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e34d92ef29a175b84cc7f5185db43656ae762bb
commit r13-1965-g8e34d92ef29a175b84cc7f5185db43656ae762bb
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106528
Bug ID: 106528
Summary: Double semi-colon causes -Wmisleading-identation to
not emit warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Created attachment 53410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53410&action=edit
consistent pretty printing of contains
How about this patch?
I used the attached test case. With the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106457
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the following patch fixed the issue:
[opc@qinzhao-aarch64-ol8 gcc]$ git diff tree.cc
diff --git a/gcc/tree.cc b/gcc/tree.cc
index fed1434d141d..d04ac121765a 100644
--- a/gcc/tree.cc
+++ b/gcc/tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Is it fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106526
--- Comment #3 from Lars Wrenger ---
The array-bounds warning itself is nice. In most cases, it is good if the
compiler can find invalid memory accesses.
However, the wording of the warning is confusing. Strictly speaking, we are not
accessing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c832ec4c3ec4853ad89ff3b0dbf6e9454e75e8cc
commit r13-1963-gc832ec4c3ec4853ad89ff3b0dbf6e9454e75e8cc
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wrenger at sra dot
uni-hannover.de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106526
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106527
Bug ID: 106527
Summary: ICE with modulo scheduling dump (-fdump-rtl-sms)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105700
Artem S. Tashkinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106243
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Sam Feifer :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39579ba8de9d91eafcc4943259b154a9e66538f1
commit r13-1962-g39579ba8de9d91eafcc4943259b154a9e66538f1
Author: Sam Feifer
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106526
--- Comment #1 from Lars Wrenger ---
Same on C++: https://godbolt.org/z/7do3zhavf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106526
Bug ID: 106526
Summary: array-bounds warning on constant pointer dereferencing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106525
Bug ID: 106525
Summary: s390: Inefficient branchless conditionals for unsigned
long long
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106521
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8552eaddc40b72461158e56b5db8709f2eb21ed
commit r13-1961-gd8552eaddc40b72461158e56b5db8709f2eb21ed
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106183
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org|redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106183
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af98cb88eb4be6a1668ddf966e975149bf8610b1
commit r13-1957-gaf98cb88eb4be6a1668ddf966e975149bf8610b1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #5 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Or should the std::pair output even be
p1 = std::pair = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0}
??
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Ugh, this one is a pasto:
v1 = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0 = { }
instead of
v1 = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Actually, I think for the std::pair definition I'd like to see
p1 = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0}
instead of
p1 = {first = 0, second = 0}
Again, more uniform and I'd say it should be encouraged to use std::get inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
Ulrich Drepper changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-04
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106524
Bug ID: 106524
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at
recog.cc:2791 (error: unrecognizable insn)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106523
Bug ID: 106523
Summary: forwprop miscompile
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #32 from Xionghu Luo (luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org) ---
Thanks for all the information! It inspires to me that "native RTL should be
endian-independent". So both big-endian and little-endian platform should
generate same (vec_select (ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #31 from Xionghu Luo (luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org) ---
Created attachment 53408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53408&action=edit
0001-rs6000-Fix-incorrect-RTL-for-Power-LE-when-removing-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106518
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #30 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #29)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #25)
> > > - On big-endian targets, vector loads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #29 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #25)
> > - On big-endian targets, vector loads and stores are assumed to put the
> > first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106506
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, xfail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Your second option isn't correct: all these nops should be consecutive. Your
> option 1 is fine :-)
Good point! It's lucky that I chose option 1. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 106522 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106522
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106519
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106522
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106522
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106522
Bug ID: 106522
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in gimple_phi_arg, at
gimple.h:4594 since r13-1950-g9bb19e143cfe8863
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106521
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-04
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106492
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Bur
85 matches
Mail list logo
