https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113255
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I'm unsure the above parallel is valid, isn't parallel executing stmts
> in "parallel" (unspecified order)?
I don't see anything invalid on it. In addition to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Using -mpower9-vector while not having -mcpu=power9 (or later) is wrong, and
should
not work. Using -mno-power9-vector is just weird.
If we can neuter the -mpower9-vector (etc.) options now, that woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
--- Comment #3 from Haochen Jiang ---
Adding them are quite straightforward. But I am not quite sure how the whole
libgomp patch works.
Is the patch attempt to check whether it is a perfect match for each ISA
detected from a hardware? If that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113255
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
DSE thinks the store is dead because it falls off the function.
(insn 41 40 46 4 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 19 frame)
(const_int -36 [0xffdc])) [2 e[1].y+0 S4 A32])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110279
--- Comment #7 from Di Zhao ---
This patch is to fix the regression test failures:
"Fix compile options of pr110279-1.c and pr110279-2.c"
(https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=6cec7b06b3c8187b36fc05cfd4dd38b42313d727)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
--- Comment #1 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> As noted in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642025.html
>
> There is not #define for -mavx10.1-256 and -mavx10.1-512
>
> By contrast,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
Bug ID: 113288
Summary: [i386] Missing #define for -mavx10.1-256 and
-mavx10.1-512
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
So if you use an old tcmalloc and a c11 or c++1 library use aligned_alloc it
would crash in the same way.
Is that the same as this issue here, yes. Is it an abi change, NO because the
abi for malloc displac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
--- Comment #19 from Nicholas Miell ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> It's irrelevant whether C++14 has aligned_alloc, since libstdc++ doesn't
> provide that anyway. What matters is whether the underlying libc provides
> it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
--- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> -fsanitize=undefined is even explicitly mentioned in the bug report
> guideline at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/. And the red banner in the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20240108 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #4)
> Yes, I agree it's duplicated of PR109987, Jeevitha's commit just exposed
> this known issue, since we are in stage 3, I wonder if we can go with
> power9-vector guar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113144
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 57009 [details]
> > simpler testcase using _BitInt()
> >
> > $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113286
Bug ID: 113286
Summary: GCC accepts invalid program involving cast to
protected base class
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107840
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113285
Bug ID: 113285
Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #8)
> It should be mismatch on both RISC-V and ARM SVE with -fno-vect-cost-model.
Changed and checked to see that GCC 13 didn't vectorize the loop for aarch64
SVE either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b |[14 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > short b = a = 0;
>
> s/short/int/ allows it to work ...
Thanks Andrew. I think we should change the tittle.
It should be mismatch on both RISC-V and ARM SVE w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> short b = a = 0;
s/short/int/ allows it to work ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #4)
> Confirm reduced case:
>
> #include
> unsigned char a;
>
> int main() {
> short b = a = 0;
> for (; a != 19; a++)
> if (a)
> b = 32872 >> a;
>
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109987
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fkastl at suse dot cz
--- Comment #2 from K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm reduced case:
#include
unsigned char a;
int main() {
short b = a = 0;
for (; a != 19; a++)
if (a)
b = 32872 >> a;
assert (b == 0);
}
with -fno-vect-cost-model -march=rv64gcv -O3:
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
--- Comment #29 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #27)
> Linking the discussion/plan here since more interested people are CCd here.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206#c9
> Using 4a0a8dc1b88408222b88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
I think there are 2 issues here:
1. We should adjust cost model to let loop vectorizer eliminate the
unprofitable
vectorization. It should be done in RISC-V backend.
2. We should fix run fail bug with -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113249
--- Comment #3 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #2)
> > If there are new execution failures that would be more concerning and
> > indicate a real bug.
> I've gone through a few of the differences between rocket and generic-oo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113249
--- Comment #2 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #1)
> Yes, several (most?) of those are expected because the tests rely on the
> default latency model. One option is to hard code the tune in those tests.
> On the other han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113248
Edwin Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 57012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57012&action=edit
Proposed errno numbers
These numbers come from Linux Kernel Headers and redhat Newlib-Cygwin.
I guess these number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113284
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There was a mistake in my report. This was on a power 9 BE system, not LE.
Configure was:
/home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/configure
--prefix=/home/seurer/gcc/git/install/gcc-test --enable-languag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112920
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57011&action=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed fix which compiles the previous attached test cases and
causes no extra regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
I do not see errno.h in freestanding C. Am i correct?
Should compiler provide an errno.h?
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/conformance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112817
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #9)
> I was looking for a new entry in gcc/c-family/c-attribs.cc or would be
> somewhere else.
It would more likely be in config/riscv/riscv.cc defined in
riscv_attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> We can just make up our own numbers, since we won't be getting errno values
> from the OS.
i would like to make libcxx to have the same numbers as libstdc++.
My p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112817
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
Yes. I haven't support VLS attributes. I guess kito may have some ideas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112817
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #5)
> Support VLS codegen with -mrvv-vector-bits and attribute is reasonable to be
> landed on GCC-14.
>
> Could you first implement -mrvv-vector-bits feature ?
>
> I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||110339
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-01-08 3:49 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> What about:
> --- libgomp/configure.ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113284
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -fno-strict-aliasing will allow the code to work the way you want it to
work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> On x86 this problem
Yes x86 does not enable the scheduler before ra and has less registers so the
scheduler is not as aggressive as on the other targets.
Note this is standard strict aliasing issue even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113284
Bug ID: 113284
Summary: [14 regression] many failures in asan after
r14-6946-ge66dc37b299cac
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
Confirmed. Funny, we shouldn't vectorize that but really optimize to "return
0". Costing might be questionable but we also haven't optimized away the loop
when comparing costs.
Disregarding that, of course t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113283
Bug ID: 113283
Summary: missing C++26 freestanding headers.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113282
Bug ID: 113282
Summary: RISC-V non-atomic union store/load reordering
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What about:
--- libgomp/configure.ac.jj 2023-11-02 07:49:21.693801244 +0100
+++ libgomp/configure.ac2024-01-08 21:46:21.014765685 +0100
@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ AX_COUNT_CPUS
AC_CHECK_PROGS(FLOCK, fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94253
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94253
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:932b8d077c23986da5279bf8b5d84875de1fb826
commit r14-7015-g932b8d077c23986da5279bf8b5d84875de1fb826
Author: John David Anglin
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113144
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #10)
> Created attachment 57009 [details]
> simpler testcase using _BitInt()
>
> $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O3 -mavx2 testcase.c
> testcase.c: In function 'foo':
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113144
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57009&action=edit
simpler testcase using _BitInt()
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O3 -mavx2 testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113249
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, several (most?) of those are expected because the tests rely on the
default latency model. One option is to hard code the tune in those tests.
On the other hand the dump tests checking for a more or less
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Bug ID: 113281
Summary: [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b vector: Runtime mismatch
with rv64gc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So the problem seems like combine decides somehow to
> combine:
> ```
> (insn 7 4 9 2 (set (reg/v:SF 100 [ xD.4459 ])
> (plus:SF (reg/v:SF 102 [ aD.4455
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105102
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
See also bug 113277
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113277
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjires at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I've pushed the fix. This can be closed as a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113251.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Bug ID: 113280
Summary: Strange error for empty inline assembly with +X
constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113251
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba4cfef0a45dd50e16ca7bee158bc630fa646ee7
commit r14-7012-gba4cfef0a45dd50e16ca7bee158bc630fa646ee7
Author: Ilya Leoshkevich
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113225
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Cupertino Miranda :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dfc88fb51c1f9c26215adf6a308c18e23992cdd9
commit r14-7011-gdfc88fb51c1f9c26215adf6a308c18e23992cdd9
Author: Cupertino Miranda
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113279
Bug ID: 113279
Summary: OpenMP 5 - Audit GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_REFERENCE
handling for references to pointers to pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113278
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
newlib certainly implements fileno():
$ nm libc.a|grep fileno
libc_a-fileno.o:
T fileno
U fileno
libc_a-fileno_u.o:
T fileno_unlocked
U fileno
So perhaps the issue is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113245
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0056458550ba6df0a339589736729be8b886790a
commit r14-7008-g0056458550ba6df0a339589736729be8b886790a
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98363
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> Seems this has long been fixed by r11-6308
oops, r11-6309 rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 98363, which changed state.
Bug 98363 Summary: C++ 20 module ICE for fast_io library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98363
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98363
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113278
Bug ID: 113278
Summary: analyzer tests relying on fileno() fail on arm-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|needs-bisection,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113277
Bug ID: 113277
Summary: RFE: analyzer diagnose allocation error leading to
pass NULL to snprintf
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113022
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113276
Bug ID: 113276
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c fails at
execution on arm cortex-m33
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68891
Mital Ashok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mital at mitalashok dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
--- Comment #8 from Richard Sandiford ---
Thanks for trying it, and sorry for not doing it myself.
The patch LGTM FWIW, so preapproved if it passes testing (which I'm sure it
will :))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52160
Hannes Domani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssbssa at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #5 fr
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
