https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109504
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
_Float16 is supportted with target sse2, that's why it report an error.
It looks like you want to use just gpr intrinsics, for that case,
x86gprintrin.h can be used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
It would be great if the problem is fixed in later versions.
I observe the error with gcc-12 on my computer yet.
*BUT* compiling with -O instead of -O2 succeeds !?
gcc-12 version.
gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109508
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105800
--- Comment #1 from martin ---
Created attachment 54856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54856&action=edit
fixed testcase class_dealloc.f90
As I just see, the first attachment does not show the bug as return value "a"
of fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109508
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103602
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103637
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103829
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
u-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-multilib
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-7168-20230413170248-ga1afdc6e2aa-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230413 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107943
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109027
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108722
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edc6659c97c4a747123b1150b372dc8e7a83a824
commit r13-7176-gedc6659c97c4a747123b1150b372dc8e7a83a824
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109502
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> SLP transforms:
>
> g.0_1 = g;
> _2 = g.0_1 == 0;
> a_7 = (unsigned int) _2;
> _3 = a_7 % 6;
> _4 = _3 == 0;
> _5 = (unsigned int) _4;
> a_8 = _5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109507
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109507
Bug ID: 109507
Summary: Optimizer creates incorrect program
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
build_non_dependent_expr has the only code which does: flag_checking > 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
>This works with 12 and Arsen reports that an earlier 13 is ok, but not had a
>chance to bisect yet.
Just a quick note on why Arsen could not reproduce it in an earlier 13, he was
using --enable-checking=y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] 'error: |[10/11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even that happens locally:
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc$ ./gcc/objdir/gcc/cc1plus t.cc -quiet
t.cc: In constructor ‘constexpr bar::bar()’:
t.cc:3:38: error: inlining failed in call to ‘always_inline’ ‘f
s GCC 9.1.0.
Ok, this is interesting.
This fails:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230413/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13.0.1/cc1plus
-quiet -v -imultiarch x86_64-linux-gnu -iprefix
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230413/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13.0.1/
-D_GNU_SOURCE -isystem /o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #14 from Roger Sayle ---
My apologies for the delay/issues. My bootstrap and regression testing of this
patch (on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) revealed an issue or two (including the reported
ICE). My plan was to fix/resolve all these befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-13
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 07:44:36PM +, leandro.lupori at linaro dot org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
>
> --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lupori ---
> Ok, thanks for the detaile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109506
Bug ID: 109506
Summary: [13 regression] 'error: inlining failed in call to
‘always_inline’ ‘foo::foo() [with T = void]’:
function body not available'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-linux-gnu
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Leandro Lupori from comment #5)
> Ok, thanks for the detailed explanations. Now I see that the standard
> doesn't allow the return of an unallocated value. This can be closed as
> inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.1.0
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109492
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43816633afd275a9057232a6ebfdc19e441f09ec
commit r13-7174-g43816633afd275a9057232a6ebfdc19e441f09ec
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109420
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109420
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50dc52e853ff267ad1f4c98571c262017b0536f8
commit r13-7173-g50dc52e853ff267ad1f4c98571c262017b0536f8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #15 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #13)
> I'm testing a patch.
I have to admit that this is a mess.
It's even more frustrating now as i did some preparatory cleanup for at leas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #5 from Leandro Lupori ---
Ok, thanks for the detailed explanations. Now I see that the standard doesn't
allow the return of an unallocated value. This can be closed as invalid.
But may I just ask a last related question? As mention
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109492
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Does the following patch work?
It compiles OK on Solaris with gcc-5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
--- Comment #11 from Allan W. Macdonald ---
The makefiles I've been maintaining contain a mechanism to make sure that any
change in a locally-included file will cause the c file that includes it to be
compiled again, like so:
### Extract of mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505
Bug ID: 109505
Summary: Compiler loops forever to OOM while compiling
evaluate_prg_hwy.cc in Chromium
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109492
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=109277
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f32f7881fb0db085479525b5a23db5dabd990c3b
commit r13-7172-gf32f7881fb0db085479525b5a23db5dabd990c3b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109504
Bug ID: 109504
Summary: Compilation fails with pragma GCC target sse4.1 and
immintrin.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think one cannot achieve what the OP wants by using allocable function
results. One should use a subroutine instead.
Compiling the code with the NAG compiler gives:
NAG Fortran Compiler Relea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c2a5db997446a9438a3e01f5229dec3f78b09e7
commit r13-7170-g9c2a5db997446a9438a3e01f5229dec3f78b09e7
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108139
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c2a5db997446a9438a3e01f5229dec3f78b09e7
commit r13-7170-g9c2a5db997446a9438a3e01f5229dec3f78b09e7
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Leandro Lupori from comment #2)
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> What if 'f' is changed to this:
>
> function f()
> integer, allocatable :: f
>
> allocate(f)
> f = 123
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #13 from Wilhelm M ---
Yes, the ICE is with the patch. I'm pretty sure that this does not happen
without the patch, but I will that check again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109503
Bug ID: 109503
Summary: attribute visibility on template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109488
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109488
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52bb22bb5e1f951c73b5cd43b0b3a423f67e5e7a
commit r13-7169-g52bb22bb5e1f951c73b5cd43b0b3a423f67e5e7a
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101295
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The testcase then doesn't have to be floating point, say on x86 -O3 -mavx512f
void
foo (int *f, int d, int e)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
{
int a = f[i];
int t;
if (a < 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
Am 13.04.2023 um 18:54 schrieb jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
>
> --- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So, would
> void
> foo (float *f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109478
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-04-12 7:31 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> and the RTL for the argument is
>
> (parallel:BLK [])
>
> ick. pa_function_arg runs into
>
> 9786 arg_size = pa_function_arg_si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #2 from Leandro Lupori ---
Thanks for the quick response.
What if 'f' is changed to this:
function f()
integer, allocatable :: f
allocate(f)
f = 123
deallocate(f)
end function
Is the program still invalid? gfortran -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, would
void
foo (float *f, float d, float e)
{
if (e >= 2.0f && e <= 4.0f)
;
else
__builtin_unreachable ();
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
{
float a = f[i];
f[i] = (a < 0.0f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you want to generate only dependencies, use -M or -MM. -MD and -MMD are
primarily used to generate dependencies as side effect of compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109491
--- Comment #12 from Chip Kerchner ---
> having always_inline across a deep call stack can exponentially increase
> compile-time
Do you think it would be worth requesting a feature to reduce the compilation
times in situations like this? Idea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
--- Comment #8 from Allan W. Macdonald ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Does using -c instead help?
Why would we want to compile the file without FIRST checking for dependencies?
The .d file needs to be up to date so that an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does using -c instead help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
--- Comment #6 from Allan W. Macdonald ---
(In reply to Allan W. Macdonald from comment #5)
> Here is a workaround:
or just
gcc -E -MMD test.c > /dev/null
if gcc-11 is default gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109183
Allan W. Macdonald changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allan.w.macdonald at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-13
Ever confirmed|0
y-trunk-r13-7165-20230413001648-g66c7257b675-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230413 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109497
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109496
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109497
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1afdc6e2aa77d0a990e1a82aceeffc837b7e50c
commit r13-7168-ga1afdc6e2aa77d0a990e1a82aceeffc837b7e50c
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109496
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1afdc6e2aa77d0a990e1a82aceeffc837b7e50c
commit r13-7168-ga1afdc6e2aa77d0a990e1a82aceeffc837b7e50c
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] Further |[12 Regression] Further IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66946624b96b762985de56444d726a0ebd4e0df5
commit r13-7167-g66946624b96b762985de56444d726a0ebd4e0df5
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100268
Jan-Benedict Glaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100836
Jan-Benedict Glaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-03-24 00:00:00 |2023-04-13
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109494
--- Comment #3 from Oliver Rosten ---
Created attachment 54852
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54852&action=edit
Preprocessed file for Test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109494
--- Comment #2 from Oliver Rosten ---
Created attachment 54851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54851&action=edit
Preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With the modified compiler? Does it ICE with an unmodified compiler as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56528
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
--- Comment #8 from Chip Kerchner ---
Well, then I'm asking GCC to add these to make it easier to use
`vec_test_data_class`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
"For clarity of code, the following named constants are suggested. Preferably,
compilers will provide these constants in a header file, but this is not
required
for compliance."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109499
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> AVX512 masking allows merge and zero modes, zero being cheaper
> (obviously). I think "zero" is what all targets support so we could
> defin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
--- Comment #5 from Chip Kerchner ---
Here's a testcase
```
#include
#include
int main()
{
__vector float p4f = { float(0), float(1), float(2), float(3) };
__vector __bool int nan_selector = vec_test_data_class(p4f,
__VEC_CLASS_FP_NAN);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
--- Comment #4 from Chip Kerchner ---
PowerPC LE - P9.
Yes, other PVIPR APIs are available and compile in more source code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
--- Comment #2 from Chip Kerchner ---
'__VEC_CLASS_FP_NAN' was not declared in this scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
Chip Kerchner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
Bug ID: 109501
Summary: vec_test_data_class defines missing
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
Bug ID: 109500
Summary: SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an
unallocated value
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109499
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109499
>
> --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109499
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is there not enough info to catch this on the RTL level with a peephole?
That works for simple cases like the first loop. But in general, I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
>
> --- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
