https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #61 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Sarah Julia Kriesch from comment #60)
> I have to agree with Richard. This problem has been serious for a long time
> but has been ignored by IBM based on distribution choices.
What? Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
สัมหรับเจ้าของกิจการ ที่มี Project เพื่อต่อยอดเพิ่มกำไรให้ธุรกิจ
แต่ยังหาทุนทรัพย์ไม่ทัน (เราช่วยคุณได้)
✔️สัมหรับเจ้าของธุรกิจที่มีการจดทะเบียน ใบประกอบกิจการ
✔️เรายินดีอนุมัติเงินด่วน 30,000-5,000,000 บ.
✔️ไม่เช็คเครดิต บูโรเอกสารไม่ยุ่งยาก ไม่ต้องมีบุคคลค้ำประกัน
✔️อัตราดอกเบี้ยเริ่มต้นที่ 1.5%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114941
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114929
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-03
Target Milestone|---
64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note only the `;` issue has been resolved, the other 2 issues I have to rework.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04f24e44fb14a22516444f70503719f3fda15d6c
commit r15-139-g04f24e44fb14a22516444f70503719f3fda15d6c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114929
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d811080341adf9d805e3f79a8fd9be2e13bd9848
commit r14-10166-gd811080341adf9d805e3f79a8fd9be2e13bd9848
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
LOoks like the primary culprits now are:
dominator optimization : 666.73 ( 7%) 0.77 ( 2%) 671.76 ( 7%)
170M ( 4%)
backwards jump threading :7848.77 ( 85%) 21.04 ( 65%)7920.05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4)
> To check for any
> possible icache misses I used L1I_CACHE_REFILL counter, and turns out that
> there are 64% more L1 icache misses for above adrp instruction w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
Summary|Basic blocks in ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The mcfgthread change fixed the full gcc build for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Christoph Müllner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114938
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58102&action=edit
reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114939
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114941
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So a patch like what was done in r0-56719-g34208acf14fa02 needs to be done to
libbacktrace . Basically this has always been broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114941
Bug ID: 114941
Summary: libbacktrace build is broken for FDPIC uclibc targets
by gcc-14-5173-g2b64e4a54042
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114940
--- Comment #4 from Timothy Liu Xuefeng ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's not optional, it's a required feature in C++14 and later. Failing to
> provide it is non-conforming, although GCC can be requested to be
> non-confo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b4d6b6ecd79df790bf0938dab1f51094f94d777
commit r14-10165-g3b4d6b6ecd79df790bf0938dab1f51094f94d777
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f3afb83c879f1bfa722a963a07c06aaf174ef72
commit r15-138-g8f3afb83c879f1bfa722a963a07c06aaf174ef72
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114940
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. what's optional is whether the compiler chooses to use that overload or
not. But its presence is required for conformance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114940
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114940
--- Comment #1 from Timothy Liu Xuefeng ---
It seems that passing -fsized-deallocation to clang++ can resolve this problem.
But it seems that it's not the default behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114929
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c943d7b5c40f447b12431df9ad27a47dad95026d
commit r15-137-gc943d7b5c40f447b12431df9ad27a47dad95026d
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77704
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Boris Kolpackov from comment #5)
> For anyone interested, here is the workaround we came up with:
>
> // A data race happens in the libstdc++ (as of GCC 7.2) implementation of the
> // ctype:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114940
Bug ID: 114940
Summary: std::generator relies on an optional overload of
operator delete
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114939
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114939
Bug ID: 114939
Summary: [15 regression] c-c++-common/torture/strub-run3.c
fails after r15-125-g7117e1f6bf6de2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-03
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77704
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Without :
#include
int as;
struct A {
A(const char *) { ++as; }
A(const A&) { ++as; }
~A() { --as; }
};
void __attribute__((noipa))
tata(std::initializer_list init)
{
throw 1;
}
int
main()
{
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114938
Bug ID: 114938
Summary: Basic blocks in generated CFG referencing the
incorrect source token column
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114937
--- Comment #3 from Mital Ashok ---
My real code looks more like:
void sat_inc(int& y) {
if (y < __INT_MAX__)
++y;
}
template
void f(int& x, F&&... functions) {
int copy = x;
(functions(copy), ...);
if (copy > x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.1
--- Comment #6 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|13.1.0 |13.2.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 114485, which changed state.
Bug 114485 Summary: [13 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 -march=rv64gcv on riscv
or `-O3 -march=armv9-a` for aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a3cc62dbb45185dd1ca32caec80d57a320ec5a0
commit r13-8682-g5a3cc62dbb45185dd1ca32caec80d57a320ec5a0
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|13.2.1 |13.2.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:704b15e277a8792ac4cd6008ee08bec4b047a3e6
commit r13-8684-g704b15e277a8792ac4cd6008ee08bec4b047a3e6
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3f9f10e03c570074a517dcfe9df8d3eeddd6aca
commit r13-8680-gb3f9f10e03c570074a517dcfe9df8d3eeddd6aca
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0624852a3ea684f6b9dabea864bcb45e31304728
commit r13-8683-g0624852a3ea684f6b9dabea864bcb45e31304728
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114655
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d040606257a579f120271dcd2af62a3458a7856e
commit r13-8681-gd040606257a579f120271dcd2af62a3458a7856e
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a676581ddc49a6ead8edced7bb4b92aeceebde56
commit r13-8679-ga676581ddc49a6ead8edced7bb4b92aeceebde56
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114937
Bug ID: 114937
Summary: [11 regression] -ftree-vrp optimizes out range check
before conditional increment
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111475
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|14.2
Summary|[14/15 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97111
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
commit r15-131-g5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
commit r15-131-g5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111475
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
commit r15-131-g5219414f3cde3c1037e289a6654cd722cfa75dea
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Bug ID: 114936
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Typo in
aarch64-ldp-fusion.cc:combine_reg_notes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:796319476e4fd6813e8319061bc3a8f19b355e35
commit r14-10162-g796319476e4fd6813e8319061bc3a8f19b355e35
Author: Patrick O'Ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c42872b2a08a742f061809c7650e0c62dd7a9f3
commit r14-10161-g5c42872b2a08a742f061809c7650e0c62dd7a9f3
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114924
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:242fbc0df6c23115c47d256e66fba6a770265c5d
commit r14-10160-g242fbc0df6c23115c47d256e66fba6a770265c5d
Author: Alex Coplan
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114582
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
There is no floating-point in the user code, but Go does have a runtime that
runs at the start of every program, and it is possible that that code uses some
floating-point operations. In particular by de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114935
Bug ID: 114935
Summary: Miscompilation of initializer_list in
presence of exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114910
--- Comment #9 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Yes, sorry I should have added that in my original message (I did mention the
commit on IRC). This is the commit that introduces the hardcfr.c file that is
miscompiled. The error may be latent and bisecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114872
--- Comment #13 from Dmitrii Pasechnik ---
Created attachment 58099
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58099&action=edit
data for comment 12 - decompiled things
data for comment 12 - decompiled .so's, .so's themselves, origina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114910
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson ---
According to my git bisect, the assembler error started with
551935d11817dd5b139d66c36f62c0f0eba0db06 is the first new commit
commit 551935d11817dd5b139d66c36f62c0f0eba0db06
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114872
Dmitrii Pasechnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dima.pasechnik at cs dot
ox.ac.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a212ac678e13e0df5da2d090144b246a1262b64
commit r15-127-g7a212ac678e13e0df5da2d090144b246a1262b64
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922
--- Comment #3 from Axel Ehrich ---
The question is related to the actual purpose of the option -fsyntax only:
In my understanding, the intention of the option -fsyntax-only is to construct
the module files needed to compile the code. A build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Tamar,
Sorry for late response.
perf profile for povray with LTO:
Compiled with 82d6d385f97 (commit before a2f4be3dae0):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Ball
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4950f6bcd3cce9deb630b76af42cd6d6968ba03f
commit r13-8678-g4950f6bcd3cce9deb630b76af42cd6d6968ba03f
Author: Andre Vieira
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 58098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58098&action=edit
patch avoiding TYPE_CANONICAL tampering
This avoids messing with TYPE_CANONICAL on types already in the hash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #8 from LIU Hao ---
Fixed in this commit:
https://github.com/lhmouse/mcfgthread/commit/86ea295e41523183e7680c03cab35e6eb74c4857
It has actually been disallowed since C++98 (N1804) but as part of a different
paragraph.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114934
Bug ID: 114934
Summary: Error message for expected unqualified-id could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #6)
> This paragraph is new in N4658 and was not in N4917. Better to avoid it by
> moving the specialization into an extern "C++" block. Thanks for the report.
Right that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #6 from LIU Hao ---
ISO/IEC WG21 N4917
> 13.9.4 Explicit specialization [temp.expl.spec]
> 2 An explicit specialization shall not use a storage-class-specifier (9.2.2)
> other than thread_local.
This paragraph is new in N4658 and w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easy fix is to do:
extern "C++" { template struct __MCF_static_assert; }
extern "C++" { template<> struct __MCF_static_assert { }; }
Note from the commit message:
However there are also a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Likely
Base: (integer(kind=4) *) &block + ((sizetype) ((unsigned long) l0_19(D) *
324) + 36)
vs.
Base: (integer(kind=4) *) &block + ((sizetype) ((integer(kind=8)) l0_19(D)
* 81) + 9) * 4
where we fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #1)
> /cc LIU Hao in case it's a new c++20 restriction and mcfgthread would need
> to adapt.
Looks like it is one:
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2443.ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114912
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> If Aldy does not fix it by Saturday, I will give the union a try then. I
> will also try out the solaris machine on the compile farm if possible.
Sorry, didn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
r15-84-g79420dd3441458
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 58097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58097&action=edit
patch I am testing
So I'm testing this. It definitely will "split brain" at the point the FE
mucks with TYP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Anyway, such changes are a partial shift towards the model to update derived
> types which you said you don't want; it doesn't actually update them, but
> bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114933
Bug ID: 114933
Summary: [15 Regression] mcfgthread-1.6.1 typecheck failure:
error: explicit specializations are not permitted here
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Created attachment 58096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58096&action=edit
exchange2.fppized-bad.f90.187t.ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Created attachment 58095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58095&action=edit
exchange2.fppized-good.f90.187t.ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
reduced more:
---
module brute_force
integer, parameter :: r=9
integer block(r, r, 0)
contains
subroutine brute
do
do
do
do
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Looks like the issue is during combine.
> >
> > We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114582
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, such changes are a partial shift towards the model to update derived
types which you said you don't want; it doesn't actually update them, but
basically forces new types after the base type(s) is/ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114924
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe40d525619eee9c2821126390df75068df4773a
commit r15-126-gfe40d525619eee9c2821126390df75068df4773a
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Fri Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Looks like the issue is during combine.
>
> We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be
> right.
Why is that not correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > which is harder for prefetchers to follow.
>
> This seems like a limitation in the HW prefetcher rather than anything else.
> Maybe the cost model for addre
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
