https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110333
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The 4095 comes from the C standard I think.
Even latest C23 draft says in 7.23.6.1
"The number of characters that can be produced by any single conversion shall
be at least 4095."
so it is I think a portabil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110333
Bug ID: 110333
Summary: GCC 13 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc
limits for sprintf
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #9 from manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu ---
Hi,
This commit is known to be an issue and I'm working on a fix, you can find more
details on this ticket https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308.
Would it be easy for you to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manolis.tsamis at vrull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79161
Ulya changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
> So it looks like a generic problem and better to be handled in
> expand_partial_{load, store}_optab_fn?
There're many other places with assumption MEM_SIZE is equal to MODE_SIZE even
!MEM_SIZE_KNOWN_P, .i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Either r14-1981 or r14-1951
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
g++ -O3 -c ... is enough to repro
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
```
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0 p, commit 6cb33e2f39e289ec4f25f845d8153053147c5c49) 14.0.0
20230620 (experimental) f5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 83733, which changed state.
Bug 83733 Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive for %d on bounded integer
when inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 94021, which changed state.
Bug 94021 Summary: -Wformat-truncation false positive due to excessive integer
range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 80776, which changed state.
Bug 80776 Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive for %d on integer bounded
by __builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79161
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is fixed for GCC 10 by r10-1052-gc29c92c789d9 (and the related
patch after that which disable it for the C front-end but enables it for
C++11+)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 11180, which changed state.
Bug 11180 Summary: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of struct
assignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36127
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So what seems to be happening is PRE is pull out the following from the loop:
pretmp_250 = MEM[(float *)_2 + 4294933760B + ivtmp.159_57 * 1];
_22 = (void *) ivtmp.140_79;
pretmp_253 = MEM[(float *)_22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110331
Bug ID: 110331
Summary: ppc64 vec_extract with constant index is suboptimal on
P8
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 110018, which changed state.
Bug 110018 Summary: Missing vectorizable_conversion(unsigned char -> double)
for BB vectorizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110018
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f19cf7526168f840fd22f6af3f0cb67efb90dc8
commit r14-2007-g6f19cf7526168f840fd22f6af3f0cb67efb90dc8
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #85 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #83)
> Created attachment 55367 [details]
> Collapsed libcall and additional loop move invariants patch v3
Thanks for staying on it! I've looked through the latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Adding this debug code :
__builtin_fprintf (stderr, "DEBUG:>> %d - %d - %d\n",
get_lra_reg_info_size () ,
max_reg_num (), ORIGINAL_REGNO (operand_reg[nop]));
shows for the failing case:
DEBUG: 664
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||csaba_22 at yahoo dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82894
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
commit r14-2005-gf5d0cec170d6d5496edf4038499d288c07d79b18
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110330
Bug ID: 110330
Summary: GCC does not diagnose ambiguous function introduced
from base class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100650
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at archaeologic dot
codes
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f3be7cbebce8ec9e0c5d9340b2772581454b862
commit r14-2004-g4f3be7cbebce8ec9e0c5d9340b2772581454b862
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Wed Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Correction with regards to reg_info_size:
I claimed that reg_info_size = 3659 > 3483 – but that's not quite true.
That's the result when doing 'p reg_info_size' in lra-constraints.cc.
When going 'up' in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110305
--- Comment #9 from Michael Morrell ---
And what about when -frounding-math is used? The transformation will still
occur in simplify_binary_operation_1 if -frounding-math -fno-signed-zeros
-fno-signaling-nans is used. Note that fold_real_zero_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Note the REG_EH_REGION. This is relevant because can_nonlocal_goto checks
> it, so for insn 25 we knew it wouldn't return to the setjmp receiver.
> Applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110329
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4eb01f987606e82ba4b7696f6cf79266d9e242ad
commit r13-7462-g4eb01f987606e82ba4b7696f6cf79266d9e242ad
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9df688cbf908adc43e92bd012dafa88680ea11dc
commit r13-7461-g9df688cbf908adc43e92bd012dafa88680ea11dc
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff00fa1914e42d6b9c45cb36a5c99f94c4133cba
commit r13-7460-gff00fa1914e42d6b9c45cb36a5c99f94c4133cba
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101002
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110329
Bug ID: 110329
Summary: [14 regression] build fails building documentation
after r14-1949-g957ae904065917
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #19 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #18)
> Would you mind if I clarified a few points regarding your query? I'm
> referring to implementing "sub borrow" with sub_overflow, as demonstrated in
> the code snippet at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Some more debugging: We have:
(gdb) p debug_rtx(curr_id->insn)
(insn 106 3450 3080 4 (parallel [
(set (reg/f:DI 1433)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 16 s16 [3483])
(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #18 from cqwrteur ---
Would you mind if I clarified a few points regarding your query? I'm referring
to implementing "sub borrow" with sub_overflow, as demonstrated in the code
snippet at https://godbolt.org/z/ev3TfeTvd , correct?
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
--- Comment #2 from Franck Behaghel
---
>This is new in 14, was OK when forking 13.
>https://ada.godbolt.org/z/TvbPxYfnP
>Currently bisecting.
Marc,
Released version may have checks disabled :
If the file gcc/DEV-PHASE contains experimental,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55364|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe later, I'm currently busy with _BitInt support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #16 from cqwrteur ---
ok
Would you mind looking at the following link, https://godbolt.org/z/z7K79YMWr,
and sharing your thoughts? I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you
very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #13)
> See this:
> https://godbolt.org/z/eozPahn9G
>
>
> addcarry pattern it recognizes but not subcarry.
And see this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
https://godbolt.org/z/4ej4dnr4b
I find a bug here:
f0 = __builtin_subcl(f0,v,0,&carry);
f1 = __builtin_subcl(f1,zero,carry,&carry);
The compiler generates:
setb %cl//redundant
movzbl %cl, %ecx//r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110304
--- Comment #13 from cqwrteur ---
See this:
https://godbolt.org/z/eozPahn9G
addcarry pattern it recognizes but not subcarry.
You can see it does not recognize the following:
template
inline constexpr T sub_carry(T x,T y,T carryin,T& carryout)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110328
Bug ID: 110328
Summary: Module related optimization is too aggressive
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8f68c4ca622a24c2e8cf2b5f2f9fdcd47a7b369
commit r14-2001-gf8f68c4ca622a24c2e8cf2b5f2f9fdcd47a7b369
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> Jürgen,
>
> I'm afraid we need a reproducer. Or can you bisect the regression further?
In principle, I could. But I just undid this commit of yours which is just one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
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=110297
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
gcc-consolidation.h is included by
m2/m2.flex:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
m2/gm2-lang.cc:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
m2/m2pp.cc:#include "gm2-gcc/gcc-consolidation.h"
m2/m2pp.cc:#inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch by Tamar (thanks!):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/622387.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression][bootstrap, |[14
|nvptx] build/gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(gdb) p ((enum rtx_code) (x)->code)
$3 = DEFINE_COND_EXEC
(gdb) p (int)((enum rtx_code) (x)->code)
$4 = 172
and hence:
(gdb) p rtx_format[172]
$6 = 0x4bcda0 "EssV"
where we take the index 2 => 's'.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> Ugh, I just realised I was using --personality=arm which is almost certainly
> it (used bash history without checking). Sorry for the noise. I'll reopen if
> it stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110327
Bug ID: 110327
Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination
when using __builtin_unreachable since
r12-4790-g4b3a325f07a
Product: gcc
Version: 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
BTW, regarding: type 'T', have 's'
/* Indexed by rtx code, gives a sequence of operand-types for
rtx's of that code. The sequence is a C string in which
each character describes one operand. */
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #84 from Alexander Klepikov
---
I've forgot to say that first I ran all tests with SH specific loop
optimization enabled when condition 'optimize && flag_move_loop_invariants' is
true. And only then I ran all tests with final (at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
commit r13-7459-g4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
Author: Ian Lance Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
commit r14-1999-gefecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55374&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
In the debugger for 'convert_syntax', it fails immediately. The caller is:
1055case DEFINE_COND_EXEC:
1056 convert_syntax (desc, loc);
(gdb) p debug_rtx(desc)
(define_cond_exec [
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
--- Comment #1 from Marc Poulhiès ---
This is new in 14, was OK when forking 13.
https://ada.godbolt.org/z/TvbPxYfnP
Currently bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-march=armv8.2-a+crc+profile+nofp+nolse+nordma
This seems totally wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
Bug ID: 110326
Summary: [gcc 14.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
Marc Poulhiès changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Host compiler is:
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0 p, commit f9de5c24b9a6172d48786289035eed8f947c04c1) 14.0.0
20230616 (experimental) a371a639b76f1bdcd7a957f400b5a7c0faf30a15
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Cross-compiler needs HAVE_AS_EXPLICIT_RELOCS=1.
With checking enabled, we get:
t.c:8:1: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
(call_insn 97 96 98 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 $0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is the host compiler?
It is the host compiler that is failing with -mcpu=native.
Can you add -v to the failing command in
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.0.0./work/build/build-aarch64-unknown-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
>
> (i) Have I got the lot?
>
I believe so.
> (ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?
>
I always try to report the bugs at the same time they go into my
"database". The first is here:
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -Wformat-nonliteral is not enabled by default either (though IIRC Debian
and Ubuntu turn it on by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109943
--- Comment #2 from Theodoros Theodoridis ---
Not sure if it's useful but the following also started with the same commit:
https://godbolt.org/z/Tqha4K976
Given the following code:
void foo(void);
static int d, e, h;
static int *f = &e, *q;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55373&action=edit
build.lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Bug ID: 110325
Summary: [14 regression] Build failure on arm64
(libiberty/physmem.c:83:1: error: ‘+nofp’ feature
modifier is incompatible with the use of
floating-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
--- Comment #4 from Serge Ayoun ---
Thanks guys for your help
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
