https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target|x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113081
Bug ID: 113081
Summary: static linking does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113080
Bug ID: 113080
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113079
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #0)
> int
> foo (int n, unsigned char* p, char* pi)
> {
> int sum = 0;
> for (int i = 0; i != 8; i++)
> {
> sum += p[i] * pi[i];
> }
> return s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112525
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4759383245ac97a5c83c0272f0a831f2a26ea5c1
commit r14-6674-g4759383245ac97a5c83c0272f0a831f2a26ea5c1
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Tue Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4759383245ac97a5c83c0272f0a831f2a26ea5c1
commit r14-6674-g4759383245ac97a5c83c0272f0a831f2a26ea5c1
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Tue Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113079
Bug ID: 113079
Summary: [x86] Fails to generate dot_prod instructions for
64-bit vector.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112943
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Why does ix86_expand_binary_operator have the use_ndd argument at all?
> > Shouldn't it always act as if the argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113047
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113078
Bug ID: 113078
Summary: [14 regression] reduction of cond_sub is not
vectorized.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Worked with r14-6063-gc6bb413eeb9 but fails with r14-6663-g4554a151d0ec62 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
Bug ID: 113077
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in
dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_offset with `-O2
-fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection`
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112468
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #48 from M Welinder ---
It's your (1). gcc is changing a program that can rely on errno not being
changed to one where the C library can change it. (The current C library or
any future library that the resulting binary may be dynami
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113076
Bug ID: 113076
Summary: [14] RISC-V: gfortran.dg/dec_io_1.f90 runtime error
after r14-4971-g0beb1611754
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110279
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56905
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56905&action=edit
testcase which shows libc++ and libstdc++ difference
with libstdc++, both GCC and clang reject this.
with libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>This case fails in Clang with the expected outcome (it fails to resolve to a
>valid call).
No it fails the same way if you use libstdc++ from GCC.
It fails that way if you use libc++ from the LLVM project
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
Bug 113068 depends on bug 112802, which changed state.
Bug 112802 Summary: : _ToClosure::operator() has no constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112802
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112802
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112802
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f54e656788be3268dd45eb036447464a937fae9
commit r14-6668-g4f54e656788be3268dd45eb036447464a937fae9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f54e656788be3268dd45eb036447464a937fae9
commit r14-6668-g4f54e656788be3268dd45eb036447464a937fae9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://eel.is/c++draft/memory#pointer.conversion
As far as I can tell, std::to_address is not required to be SFINAE safe ...
The standard just says:
```
Returns: pointer_traits::to_address(p) if that e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Oh
> https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3545
Whoops wrong one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3545
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113075
Bug ID: 113075
Summary: Inconsistent/wrong diagnostic when incorrectly taking
address of single/overloaded
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:989e67f827b74b76e58abe137ce12d948af2290c
commit r14-6667-g989e67f827b74b76e58abe137ce12d948af2290c
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #7 from juki at gcc dot mail.kapsi.fi ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> Works for me:
I also have plenty of code where this works just fine and still some locations
where it does not. And there are optimization level requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Works for me:
#include
#include
#define LOAD_SI128(ptr) \
( ((uintptr_t)(ptr) & 15) == 0 ) ? _mm_load_si128((__m128i*)(ptr)) :
_mm_loadu_si128((__m128i*)(ptr))
extern char x[16];
__m128i y;
void
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836
Bug 85836 depends on bug 96580, which changed state.
Bug 96580 Summary: F2018 changes to date_and_time intrinsics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96580
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96580
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #47 from David Brown ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #46)
> Should "-std=c99" imply turning off these optimizations?
>
> Creating calls to, say, strlen is incompatible with the C99 standard and
> perhaps better limited to "-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #5 from juki at gcc dot mail.kapsi.fi ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> >
> > This won't work if ptr is a __m128i *. It is allowed to optimize
> > (uintptr_t)(__m128i *)foo % 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
Bug ID: 113074
Summary: requires requires should be SFINAE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113073
Bug ID: 113073
Summary: [14] RISC-V: segfault from out of bounds memory access
in gcc.dg/torture/pr112736.c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> (In reply to juki from comment #2)
> > Unfortunately alignment of the cast type was not causing this issue.
> >
> > I changed all calls that were defined in GCC headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #46 from M Welinder ---
Should "-std=c99" imply turning off these optimizations?
Creating calls to, say, strlen is incompatible with the C99 standard and
perhaps better limited to "-std=gnu-something" or an opt-in f-flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
index 256fa7d048d..65a2915329e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
@@ -10770,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56903
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56903&action=edit
gcc14-pr112816-3.patch
Ah, forgot some expanders in mmx.md.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96585
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96584
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this applies to `|` instead of `&` too:
```
int foo1(int a, int b)
{
return (a ^ 4) | (~a ^ 4);
}
```
This should be optimized to `-1`. Though this does NOT get optimized to `-1` on
the RTL lev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96580
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b77691a90fc8a7e917417ce747bf78669304f951
commit r14-6665-gb77691a90fc8a7e917417ce747bf78669304f951
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
--- Comment #15 from Andrei Elovikov ---
I'd like to point out that while the first reproducer
(https://godbolt.org/z/3vzejjWcq) started to pass now on godbolt, the second
(https://godbolt.org/z/cEh1W7PdG) still fails with an ICE. Please let me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is the bool testcase which just allows the use of ^:
```
bool foo1(bool a, int b)
{
bool b1 = b == 1;
bool b2 = !b1;
return (a ^ b1) & (a ^ b2);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Wait this part is wrong `which does basically `(a ^ 4) & (a ^ (~4))` -> `(4 ^
(~4)) & (a ^ a)` which is 0 as `a ^ a` is 0.`
Anyways a pattern like:
```
(simplify
(bit_and (bit_xor @0 @1) (bit_xor @0 @2))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
Bug ID: 113072
Summary: `(a ^ CST0) & (~a ^ CST0)` is not optimized to 0 at
the gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: TREE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113071
Bug ID: 113071
Summary: `((a == c) || (a == b)) ? a : b` is sometimes not
optimized to `(a == c) ? c : b`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96580
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113070
Bug ID: 113070
Summary: [14 regression] [AArch64] [PGO/LTO] Miscompilation of
go compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, wrong-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113069
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fkastl at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
It could, but IMHO it's a different enough testcase/issue that a separate PR is
fine too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
juki at gcc dot mail.kapsi.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113056
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113069
Bug ID: 113069
Summary: gimple-ssa-sccopy.cc:143:12: warning: private field
'curr_generation' is not used [-Wunused-private-field]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113063
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113054
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4554a151d0ec62332c332175ec1017f853006b60
commit r14-6663-g4554a151d0ec62332c332175ec1017f853006b60
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> IIUC this will be fixed by making ranges::to's closure object
> SFINAE-friendly.
I didn't investigate the root cause in depth. So this should probably be
considered a dup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113065
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 56902
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56902&action=edit
A testcase
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-debug/release/usr/gcc-14.0.0-x86-64/bin/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113068
Bug ID: 113068
Summary: : ranges::to() |
ranges::to() is not a range adaptor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113066
Luke Geeson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113066
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -funreachable-traps works for what you want it to work at -O1 and above
but not at -O0 due to ub_if_reached not being inlined ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113066
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 2.95.3 has the same behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113062
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
So we try to combine these two insns:
(insn 14 82 16 2 (set (mem/c:TF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int 32 [0x20])) [3 %sfp+-32 S16 A128])
(asm_operands:TF ("") ("=g") 0 [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113066
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does warn not just once but twice:
```
: In function 'ub_if_reached':
:2:44: warning: function declared 'noreturn' has a 'return' statement
2 | [[noreturn]] inline void ub_if_reached() { return; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113067
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 56901
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56901&action=edit
Simple testcase (C and Fortran) - as same-directory .diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113067
Bug ID: 113067
Summary: [OpenMP][5.1] Context selector - handle
'implementation={requires(...)}'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113056
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113066
Bug ID: 113066
Summary: Returning from a function marked noreturn allows
execution to fall-through
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111975
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
What's left is the dots.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111975
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88a398a487ee37f1fc7850740f2d94d895657646
commit r14-6662-g88a398a487ee37f1fc7850740f2d94d895657646
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #0)
> > GCC 14 implements P2280 (see #106650).
>
> N.B. if you say "Bug 106650" or "PR 106650" or "bug #10665
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69374
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Gerald Pfeifer :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04538248c3ed202fd938f0ceff65ecce3b1786f3
commit r14-6660-g04538248c3ed202fd938f0ceff65ecce3b1786f3
Author: Gerald Pfeifer
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113061
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112432
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3b2799b872bc4c1944629af9dfc8472c8ca5fe6
commit r14-6659-gb3b2799b872bc4c1944629af9dfc8472c8ca5fe6
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Dec 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113056
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> for the pkg build (original report): no
> for the quick test I did earlier: yes because I was rushing, oops
/tmp/build $ ~/git/gcc/configure --prefix=/tmp/gcc
--enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
> When invoking the conversion operator the problem does not occur.
When invoking the conversion operator *explicitly* the problem does not occur.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Fixed sample (a typo in else branch of WORKAROUND2):
struct no_copy
{
no_copy() = default;
no_copy(const no_copy&) = delete;
no_copy(no_copy&&);
no_copy& operator=(const no_cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113065
--- Comment #1 from 陳履軒 ---
Here's the result after compiling:
$ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -mcpu=cortex-a32 -mfpu=crypto-neon-fp-armv8 -Wextra
-Werror -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations
test.c
during RTL pass: e
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
