https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115646
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:453b1d291d1a0f89087ad91cf6b1bed1ec68eff3
commit r15-1643-g453b1d291d1a0f89087ad91cf6b1bed1ec68eff3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640
>
> Thomas Schwinge changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Now isel has some handling on x CMP y ? -1 : 0 to x CMP y,
/* Try to fold x CMP y ? -1 : 0 to x CMP y. */
if (can_compute_op0
&& integer_minus_onep (op1)
&& int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #5 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||114189
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
Bug ID: 115659
Summary: powerpc fallout from removing vcond{,u,eq} patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I am talking about adding path isolation for out of ranges for the shift
operand too; https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-June/244213.html .
I am not sure how it will interact with this here though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #34 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54d2339c9f87f702e02e571a5460e11c19e1c02f
commit r15-1639-g54d2339c9f87f702e02e571a5460e11c19e1c02f
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #4 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58517&action=edit
g++ output
This file contains the compiler output using the following cmdline on the
source file containing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-26
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0, 13.1.0, 14.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115658
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Though I should note
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2626r0.pdf and
https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/tree/master#may-22nd-2024
So maybe we really should keep on treat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115658
Bug ID: 115658
Summary: char16_t and char32_t aliasing is conserative
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias, missed-optimization
Severity: enhan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #3 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58516
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58516&action=edit
preprocessed file for the source with repro
This pre-processed was generated by running the following command:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657
Bug ID: 115657
Summary: [15 regression] ICE in tsubst_enum/tsubst_expr during
template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #2 from Sean Murthy ---
Compiler version: GCC 11.1 through GCC 14.1
Compiler options: -std=c++20 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -pedantic-errors
-Werror=pedantic
Compiler output:
: In function 'int main()':
:39:13: error: class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(gdb) call get_first_event_in_a_function (&first_fn_event_idx)
$20 = false
???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(gdb) p m_events
$16 = {> =
{> = {m_vec = 0x0}, }, }
(gdb)
Then
(gdb) p m_vec
$17 = (vec *) 0x0
Then
(gdb) s
1153 ASSERT_FALSE (path.interprocedural_p ());
(gdb) p path
$19 = { = {_vptr.diagnostic_path =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> "make selftest-valgrind" is clean for me. Note that if you can reproducer
> this standalone, "make selftest-gdb" is a handy way to run the selftests
> under the deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aac00d09859cc5934bd0f7493d537b8430337773
commit r15-1638-gaac00d09859cc5934bd0f7493d537b8430337773
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #1 from Sean Murthy ---
Oops. I meant to say "GCC 11.1" in my bug description; not GCC 11.5. It looks
like I can't edit the description. So, please make that a mental correction. 😳
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
Bug ID: 115656
Summary: Templated ctor use rejected in non-deduced context if
class template has template template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115648
--- Comment #1 from HaoChen Gui ---
The patch replaced rtx cost comparison with insn cost comparison. Some
replacements can be done before but can't now. Or vice versa. Please check the
fwprop dump log via -fdump-rtl-fwprop1-details and judge if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109360
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17967907102099806dc80c71ee7665ffb22ffa23
commit r15-1633-g17967907102099806dc80c71ee7665ffb22ffa23
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115504
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:737449e5f233feb682b5dd2cc153892ad90a79bd
commit r15-1631-g737449e5f233feb682b5dd2cc153892ad90a79bd
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115634
--- Comment #3 from Richard Sandiford ---
Yeah, I agree that sounds like the right fix. Specifically, I assume
s390_decompose_addrstyle_without_index, when doing:
if (op && GET_CODE (op) != REG)
return false;
should check whether the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115655
--- Comment #1 from Evgeny Karpov ---
The patch containing the fix is under review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655663.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115634
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> s390_valid_shift_count does not seem to check that %r0 was valid here.
I should expand on that, it seems to allow any register. I think it should
allow only pes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
> different issue from the one that is raised in the PR. (Unless we think that
> -O2 and -O3 should always have the same inlining heuristics henceforward, but
> that seems unlikely.)
Yes, I think point of -
> different issue from the one that is raised in the PR. (Unless we think that
> -O2 and -O3 should always have the same inlining heuristics henceforward, but
> that seems unlikely.)
Yes, I think point of -O3 is to let compiler to be more aggressive than
what seems desirable for your average dist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115628
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to sadineniharish8446 from comment #4)
> we ate trying to take coverage for libstdc++, I have tried following
> configuration options but getting same error.
>
> ../configure --enable-languages=c,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115655
Bug ID: 115655
Summary: [15 Regression] bootstrap failure on
legitimize_dllimport_symbol:
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-25
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115587
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b383719aebe45bbe8cc3944e515ed7caa30e8744
commit r14-10346-gb383719aebe45bbe8cc3944e515ed7caa30e8744
Author: Sandra Loos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] |[13/14 Regression]
|_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc382a373e6824bb998007d1dcb0805b0cf4b8e8
commit r15-1625-gfc382a373e6824bb998007d1dcb0805b0cf4b8e8
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115627
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh some of it is in the internals manual too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Guidelines-for-Diagnostics.html#Quoting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115653
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115654
Bug ID: 115654
Summary: __builtin_cpu_supports should accept specific CPU
names
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115653
Bug ID: 115653
Summary: USE without ONLY warning when compiling submodules
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115540
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115616
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115540
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d16355c72c7f7b54ecf06371d14d7ad309ea4c34
commit r15-1623-gd16355c72c7f7b54ecf06371d14d7ad309ea4c34
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
Bug ID: 115652
Summary: [15 Regression] GCN: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr70138-{1,2}.c
(internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115651
Bug ID: 115651
Summary: CTAD: gcc accepts the code which should be rejected.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115644
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115641
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115641
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-25
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #2 from Evgeny Karpov ---
Thanks for reporting the issue.
The patch series has been tested, and regression tests have been executed for
x86_64-w64-mingw32. Could you please provide more details on
which patch triggers the regression?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115425
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115425
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed6ffc4e62f716d1b31d599d22594dd969da137f
commit r15-1621-ged6ffc4e62f716d1b31d599d22594dd969da137f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] ICE: |[13/14 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71f484d02b2b3e8616cd7af27a0d4c72e4c7e977
commit r15-1620-g71f484d02b2b3e8616cd7af27a0d4c72e4c7e977
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112363
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #17 from Richard Sandiford ---
I can see that it's useful to ask whether the current -O2 & -O3 inlining
heuristics are making the right trade-off. But I think that's really a
different issue from the one that is raised in the PR. (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115642
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98678
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58500|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115540
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 58514
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58514&action=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed patch - which is currently being bootstrap tested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115540
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115650
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115650
Bug ID: 115650
Summary: [15 Regression] ARC backend bug exposed by
late-combine pass
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115649
Bug ID: 115649
Summary: Non-ABI constructor (C4) emitted in DWARF .debug_info
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCN: FAIL: |[15 Regression] GCN: FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Surya Kumari Jangala
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b9b8d6cfdf59337f4b7ce10ce92a98044b2657b
commit r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf59337f4b7ce10ce92a98044b2657b
Author: Surya Kumari Jang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #16 from Rama Malladi ---
I had posted a patch at the URL below for this feature:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655506.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #15 from Rama Malladi ---
Thanks for the comments and for giving us some history/ perspective. I agree
with this statement,
> Pushing up -O2 limits can make sense, but needs to be done carefully -
> in longer term IMO we do not want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115536
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115536
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f168b412f44781013401492acfedf22afe7741b
commit r15-1618-g9f168b412f44781013401492acfedf22afe7741b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115644
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to wierton from comment #1)
> This crash seems to be the same cause: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/6br3xoaKG
Related in the sense redeclaring the variable with a different type changes the
the underly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06ebb7c6f31fe42ffdea6f51ac1ba1f6b058c090
commit r15-1615-g06ebb7c6f31fe42ffdea6f51ac1ba1f6b058c090
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
As for bit of history on this. I have introduced the split -O2 and -O3
limits in order to be able to enable -finline-small-functions at -O2
which we found to be really importnat for C++ codebases which no lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #13 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
> If this is without LTO, can you also try the LTO numbers?
> Inliner behaves sifniciantly different with and without LTO, since LTO
> introduces many (and often to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
If this is without LTO, can you also try the LTO numbers?
Inliner behaves sifniciantly different with and without LTO, since LTO
introduces many (and often too many) inlining oppurtunities, which
sometimes ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.0, 14.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Summary|RISC-V: Missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989
--- Comment #7 from Pash Osh ---
Fix is found in gcc14:
git cherry-pick 7560f2b4e387ef43ef45ee9fb06efbad6ca0fedf
Author: Vineet Gupta
Date: Wed Nov 1 14:46:33 2023 -0700
RISC-V: fix TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE hook for libcalls
Fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115574
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
> #pragma declare target link(a,b)
as Thomas pointed out (cf. comment 1), an 'omp' is missing.
It also lacks, e.g. '#pragma omp target enter data map(a, b)' to be valid.
Still, the real issue is '!is_globa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #11 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> A 1.1% overall performance gain looks good - is there a significant codesize
> hit from this? If so, are there slightly less aggressive settings that still
> get most o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-25
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115574
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3915c1ad56591cbd68229a64c941c38330abd69
commit r15-1614-ge3915c1ad56591cbd68229a64c941c38330abd69
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115587
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115587
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21f1073d388af8af207183b0ed592e1cc47d20ab
commit r15-1613-g21f1073d388af8af207183b0ed592e1cc47d20ab
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115648
Bug ID: 115648
Summary: [15 Regression] GCN: [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+}
gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure-{2,3}.c scan-rtl-dump
hoist "PRE/HOIST: end of bb .* copying expression"
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
