https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108995
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We already fold this on GENERIC to
*c = -229690488(OVF);
with optimization and
*c = (int) b * 10921;
without. It's almost surely through extract_muldiv, we also diagnose
t.c: In function ‘main’:
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e8a3dbbb26f66ce8ea60be48962022b5fb2ef55
commit r13-6518-g7e8a3dbbb26f66ce8ea60be48962022b5fb2ef55
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Sep 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1ccb4583dfaa267648110aa7da7275acc3000f8
commit r13-6517-ga1ccb4583dfaa267648110aa7da7275acc3000f8
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Sep 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f30f04b1fbd4b4e13a7535fad8e698c7b24db9b8
commit r13-6516-gf30f04b1fbd4b4e13a7535fad8e698c7b24db9b8
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Sep 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> with a debug build on darwin19:
> #2 0x00010249e5a5 in make_ssa_name_fn (fn=0x11104b170, var=0x10771d1f8,
> stmt=0x0, version=0) at /src-local/gcc-master/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> A three-operand phi make ifcvt generate worse code
>
It saved 1 add for potential 1.f + 0.f/1.f since it's constant, but generates
more logic operations for predica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107741
--- Comment #2 from David Blaikie ---
Ping on this? Would love it if someone could check my work/confirm my
diagnosis, even if it's not a priority to fix the bug immediately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109047
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
More over the idea of this attribute is you only need to say on the definition
if there is going to be multiple targets. Otherwise you would get different
behavior across targets. And exporting different sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
A three-operand phi make ifcvt generate worse code
[local count: 10737414]:
# iftmp.1_16 = PHI <2.5e-1(13), 5.0e-1(2)>
# iftmp.0_34 = PHI <4.0e+0(13), 2.0e+0(2)>
# prephitmp_40 = PHI <-2.5e-1(13), -5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109049
Bug ID: 109049
Summary: std::declval gives wrong result for cv void
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Lots of logic operation for mask in ifcvt
[local count: 531502205]:
# i_18 = PHI
# ivtmp_15 = PHI
# DEBUG i => NULL
# DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
_38 = (long unsigned int) i_18;
_37 = _38 * 4;
_36 = a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
There's also a backend misoptimization for x86 avx512 mask compare which is
same as PR88570.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
Bug ID: 109048
Summary: [13 regression] redundant mask compare generated by
vectorizer.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109047
Bug ID: 109047
Summary: Harmonize __attribute__((target_clones)) requirement
in function prototype
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109046
Bug ID: 109046
Summary: 13 regresion caused by complex lower.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108773
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108938
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Though, if more than one replacement operation is emitted, one needs to be
> careful not to emit more expensive replacement than the original sequence
> (especial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108116
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0edd2060dbc5aad0bae3ef4d68c8e85f26d0062
commit r12-9231-gc0edd2060dbc5aad0bae3ef4d68c8e85f26d0062
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107853
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb39089c5a0da1e9b16ad27db557a2c3f930e668
commit r12-9229-gcb39089c5a0da1e9b16ad27db557a2c3f930e668
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108116
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09c5937d8295fbc96f6d05cc12ec3709740a277d
commit r12-9230-g09c5937d8295fbc96f6d05cc12ec3709740a277d
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107864
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18bd59990196462cde8011458e2518118b1b6681
commit r12-9228-g18bd59990196462cde8011458e2518118b1b6681
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107179
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:668098c2e55c33f97e331c3160174bf12c3d88f7
commit r12-9227-g668098c2e55c33f97e331c3160174bf12c3d88f7
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Both testcases I tested all exited with a non-zero value even at -O0 ...
Ok, I missed you need to pass an argument to the program. Anyways I think this
might be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107299
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:306c7b1ac3e4413288e6930b00a3cab2133c4e57
commit r13-6507-g306c7b1ac3e4413288e6930b00a3cab2133c4e57
Author: Michael Meissner
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The previous patch would accept invalid code, as it would miss assumed-shape.
Fixed by the additional:
@@ -2650,10 +2669,14 @@ compare_parameter (gfc_symbol *formal, gfc_expr
*actual,
if (symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108987
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
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=109005
--- Comment #13 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Not sure that it’ll make any difference, but I managed to slim the reproducer
down to a pure set of data declarations, no user code at all. It’s the very
last declaration (TIMx_CCMRx_Lower_Half)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #12 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Not sure that it’ll make any difference, but I managed to slim the reproducer
down to a pure set of data declarations, no user code at all. It’s the very
last declaration (TIMx_CCMRx_Lower_Half)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #11 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Created attachment 54597
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54597&action=edit
Minimal reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Both testcases I tested all exited with a non-zero value even at -O0 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108706
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 54596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54596&action=edit
C source code
After 3 hours further reduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Monakov ---
It seems you are saying that as long as GCC emits code according to the Holy
Scripture that is the ABI spec, everything is fine. I imagine on other
architectures maintainers are able to consider how the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #22 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #20)
> > I haven't seen comments on Kees's first example, where "malloc" returns an
> > "__alloc_size" hint that's lost when "p" is returned from the function (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107897
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
This does NOT improve things:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/module.cc b/gcc/fortran/module.cc
index 601497e0998..2d6c7b8ef73 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/module.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/module.cc
@@ -5258,7 +5258,10 @@ r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #21 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #18)
> > > This is not the case in C: https://godbolt.org/z/P7M6cdnoa
> > >
> > Right, it's not legal C syntax. I want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also:
MODULE m
contains
subroutine bar (arg, res)
class(*) :: arg
character(100) :: res
end subroutine
END MODULE
USE m
END
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> The attachment in pr68800 may serve as a starting point:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36964
Thanks, reduced:
MODULE m
TYPE :: a
END TYPE
END
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
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=108896
--- Comment #20 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Montag, dem 06.03.2023 um 19:15 + schrieb isanbard at gmail dot com:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #18 from Bill Wendling ---
> (In reply to Martin Uecker fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109045
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does optimize much dealing with assume and function calls really so this is
not really shocking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109045
Bug ID: 109045
Summary: assume attribute and std::optional do not mix
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #18)
> > This is not the case in C: https://godbolt.org/z/P7M6cdnoa
> >
> Right, it's not legal C syntax. I wanted to point out that it's not an
> impossible syntax.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #18 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #17)
> Am Freitag, dem 03.03.2023 um 23:18 + schrieb isanbard at gmail dot com:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
> >
> > --- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Interestingly, the three lines removed in the previous comment come from a fix
for PR41093, whose title is "memory leaks with gfc_namespace".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54595&action=edit
gcc13-pr109042.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109044
Bug ID: 109044
Summary: Missed fold for (n - 1) / 2 when n is odd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109043
Bug ID: 109043
Summary: Warning: Legacy Extension: Duplicate SAVE attribute
(also ASYNCHRONOUS, VOLATILE)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 52227 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52227
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109038
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 109037 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
20220508 is good, so the range is 20220508 to 20220515.
In git hash terms, that's g:a1947c92f7cda5f6cf7b8d8a9a44f6dd45352c03
to g:18547874ee205d830acb31f1e3c1c89fc7725c14.
I will try to reduce the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109022
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 51610 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51610
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=51605
Bug 51605 depends on bug 51610, which changed state.
Bug 51610 Summary: [OOP] Class container does not properly handle POINTER and
TARGET
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51610
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 101101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101101
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 104229 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104229
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 107380 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107380
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53951
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 53951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109024
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> I will try to bisect this one with snapshots. Trying 20220515 first.
This one bad. Trying 20220508.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
Bug ID: 109042
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in emit_support_tinfo_1, at
cp/rtti.cc:1584
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I will try to bisect this one with snapshots. Trying 20220515 first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109039
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miscompilation with |[12/13 Regression]
|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed signed integer |Missed signed integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108994
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108865
Costas Argyris changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54589|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
with a debug build on darwin19:
#2 0x00010249e5a5 in make_ssa_name_fn (fn=0x11104b170, var=0x10771d1f8,
stmt=0x0, version=0) at /src-local/gcc-master/gcc/tree-ssanames.cc:357
357 gcc_assert (VAR_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109007
--- Comment #19 from bugreporter66 at gmail dot com ---
On the side note, my POWER8 machine can only run Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and Ubuntu
18.04 LTS, later releases simply won't boot. So it's getting outdated anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
Bug ID: 109041
Summary: Bogus compile time check by __builtin_memset? error:
‘__builtin_memset’ writing 4 bytes into a region of
size 0 overflows the destination
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin |x86_64-apple-darwin,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
Bug ID: 109040
Summary: [13 Regression] wrong code with v16hi compare & mask
on riscv64 at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oh nvm... you did.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm still trying to build ADA to reproduce this.
Could you try 'p debug_tree (var)'
if var is a SSA_NAME debug won't print anything. If it comes back as not 0
could you also do p debug_tree (TR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109007
--- Comment #18 from bugreporter66 at gmail dot com ---
I noticed that building on newer Linux distros often produces a binary that
then cannot run on older ones even with the same CPU, it requires newer
libraries at runtime (tried that with x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108727
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
