https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
Andrea Griffini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||agriff at tin dot it
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115548
Bug ID: 115548
Summary: ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed with attribute malloc
and simd enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> > > Created attachment 58462 [details]
> > > Input file that triggers the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115547
Bug ID: 115547
Summary: `(a ^ c) & (a | c)` -> `a ^ c` not done on the
gimple/tree level
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #3)
> And I introduced a similar issue with PR115157.
Except that was about enum where here we are talking about size of long.
You could have tested on x86_64 with -m32 to g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #8 from Haochen Jiang ---
One potential solution is to let the resolver ISA level becomes the highest one
in target_clones instead of the default one.
Then it will not get the memory/register mismatch when passing/returning
argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nikhilg1 at uci dot edu
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115546
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
But starting with GCC 14, they are not ignored.
In this case you have one variable that is in a comdat section named "A" and
another one which is in a regular section named "A" which conflict.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115546
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
the section attribute was ignored before GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114759
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #27 from Peter Bergner ---
FYI, as part of the work for PR114759, I have come to the conclusion that
disabling shrink-wrapping in the presence of -mrop-protect is a big hammer and
we shouldn't really need to do that. I plan on "fixi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115546
Bug ID: 115546
Summary: [14.1.0 Regression] Section Type Conflict Error
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] |[15 regression]
|miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497
--- Comment #15 from Richard Smith
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> I assume clang doesn't have __is_arithmetic, __is_scalar and __is_void
> built-ins yet, because also defines class templates
> with those names.
Clang has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
Bug ID: 115545
Summary: [15 regression] missing/excess errors after
r15-1395-g01044471ea39f9
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115535
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the gimple stmt/complex_expr in this case:
_6 = COMPLEX_EXPR ;
where _6 is fully unused.
Complex lowering changes:
_6 = COMPLEX_EXPR ;
_2 = REALPART_EXPR <_6>;
into:
_6 = COMPLEX_EXPR ;
_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115507
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|'Wide_Wide_Value failed for |bogus Constraint_Error for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
First data point:
after the commit from Uros,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=8bb6b2f4ae19c3aab7d7a5e5c8f5965f89d90e01
at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:09:13
all was still fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 58462 [details]
> > Input file that triggers the test case with segmentation fault
> >
> > This test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I assume clang doesn't have __is_arithmetic, __is_scalar and __is_void
built-ins yet, because also defines class templates
with those names.
At least __are_same, __is_integer and __is_floating don't cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103191
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115390
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Assignee|unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111250
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108769
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96288
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
r15-1418-20240618085924-gadadb5c7ba0-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240618 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> This might be improved by
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654819.html . Or it
> might be the case the vectorizer case needs to be improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be improved by
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654819.html . Or it might
be the case the vectorizer case needs to be improved afterwards. But I think
that is the infrastructure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115504
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115543
Bug ID: 115543
Summary: DWARF call_site_parameter entries are not generated
for stack-passed parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #64 from Patrick J. LoPresti ---
The C (and POSIX) standards have had "restrict" on the arguments to memcpy()
since C99. So calling it with overlapping arguments is undefined behavior and
always has been.
This bug should be trivial t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> And again, causing PR 115522
oh and clang has not implemented this DR either which made me think that was
more of a libstdc++ issue :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115542
Bug ID: 115542
Summary: Invalid finalization in derived type containing
allocatable entities
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
karlin.mff.cu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115541
Bug ID: 115541
Summary: gcc generates calls to memcpy that violate the memcpy
specification
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 18.06.2024 um 16:11 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
> Thanks for the fix!
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115527
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654985.html
but I'm not changing __has_trivial_destructor in that patch. That and its kin
are extensions:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458
--- Comment #5 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The bisected rev only exposes this.
Thanks Richard for hint, will take a look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks for the fix!
I think the testcase needs SVE enabled to ICE no?
shouldn't that be -mcpu=neoverse-v1 and not -mcpu=neoverse-n1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f9be55a4630134a237219af9cc8143e02080380
commit r15-1407-g7f9be55a4630134a237219af9cc8143e02080380
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115540
Bug ID: 115540
Summary: "gcc/m2/mc-boot-ch/Gtermios.cc:292:20: error:
return-statement with a value, in function returning
'void' [-fpermissive]" when HAVE_CFMAKERAW is defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect there is a dup of this already. See the bug which I made this one
> blocking for a list of related bugs.
Most of the other bugs relate to the argume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> fastreadl_fetch in particular looks aliasing unsafe, let alone the rest.
The code looks derived from 86box or similar. They build with
-fno-strict-aliasing:
https://git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
fastreadl_fetch in particular looks aliasing unsafe, let alone the rest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115534
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect there is a dup of this already. See the bug which I made this one
blocking for a list of related bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And again, causing PR 115522
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
--- Comment #3 from fuel ---
Created attachment 58463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58463&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
fuel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||melodygoad18 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So w/o SLP we reject this with
if ((double_reduc || reduction_type != TREE_CODE_REDUCTION)
&& ncopies > 1)
{
if (dump_enabled_p ())
dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Please read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and follow the instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
Bug ID: 115539
Summary: Misoptimization of application at -O2 -g on x86-64
causing segfaults on valid memory accesses where it
works on both clang and gcc at -g (no -O2)
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115538
Bug ID: 115538
Summary: wrong-code with SLP vectorization of conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115514
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115464
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bd4fbae45d11795a9a6f54b866308d4d7134def
commit r15-1399-g6bd4fbae45d11795a9a6f54b866308d4d7134def
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
>
> --- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115514
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=115537
Bug ID: 115537
Summary: [15 Regression] vectorizable_reduction ICEs after
g:d66b820f392aa9a7c34d3cddaf3d7c73bf23f82d
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9b96a68860bfdee49d40b4a844af7c5ef69cd12
commit r15-1394-gc9b96a68860bfdee49d40b4a844af7c5ef69cd12
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
>
> --- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58462&action=edit
Input file that triggers the test case with segmentation fault
This test case needs Whizard 3.1.4 to be downlo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115536
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115536
Bug ID: 115536
Summary: Expression is evaluated incorrectly when encountering
relops and indirection
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114996
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115514
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The constraint on reverse_iterator::operator->() checks it for an lvalue, which
suggests nobody considered (or cared) about annoying iterators that do
something different for lvalues and rvalues.
I'm incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115514
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> (Another difference is it only applies the resolution for C++17 onward.)
C++20 onward, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Btw, I had opened PR115490 with my results for this already. Some mitigation
> should be from optimizing ISEL expansion to vcond_mask and I'd start with
> lookin
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo