https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #22 from Kewen Lin ---
As PR108977 requires these fixes are backported to GCC11, I'm curious that do
we plan to backport the fixes to GCC11 as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
Bug 114189 depends on bug 115659, which changed state.
Bug 115659 Summary: powerpc fallout from removing vcond{,u,eq} patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b22831d3c74a1b3e72dab840e2818e495ecd567
commit r13-8907-g1b22831d3c74a1b3e72dab840e2818e495ecd567
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29b2e1cdb6f182d3f519a4b96cdc98032a10f81d
commit r14-10410-g29b2e1cdb6f182d3f519a4b96cdc98032a10f81d
Author: Paul Thomas
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7e4000397842671fe7e5c0473f1fa62707e1db9
commit r15-1991-gf7e4000397842671fe7e5c0473f1fa62707e1db9
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88624
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96992
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240711 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cris
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|[14 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115867
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f4478f0f31263997bfdc4159f90e58dd79b38f9
commit r15-1990-g4f4478f0f31263997bfdc4159f90e58dd79b38f9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #17 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> Should we do a backport to 13 and 14?
Yes, I'm doing test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97082
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I think that mtest should pass now on Darwin. I think the dwarf5 tests may
still be failing. This seems to be because dsymutil does not understand
dwarf5, at least on the compile farm macOS machine that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Should we do a backport to 13 and 14?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
chenglulu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by LuluCheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abeb6c8a62758faa0719e818e6e8a7db15a6793b
commit r15-1986-gabeb6c8a62758faa0719e818e6e8a7db15a6793b
Author: Lulu Cheng
Date: Thu Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115872
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115885
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Perhaps g++ could issue a warning about it, then?
That is PR 91770.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115885
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115886
Bug ID: 115886
Summary: 4 different ways of implementing concat with stride
produce different results
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115885
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note doing extern "C" around includes is bad form and is even undefined
according to the C++ standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97082
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b870086904cfd480cf4297525ece00d169482ec7
commit r15-1984-gb870086904cfd480cf4297525ece00d169482ec7
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kacper.slominski72 at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115884
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115885
Bug ID: 115885
Summary: Build errors when libstdc++ math.h included in extern
"C" block
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115880
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> I have posted patches (which need an update [on my shorter TODO] that
> implement the availability attribute). That makes a fix unnecessary - I
> would much rathe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115884
Bug ID: 115884
Summary: overload when one specific subroutine has no arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://wg21.link/P0371
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry :(. I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2664.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This has started to fail since r15-1946
using size_t = decltype(sizeof(0));
void* operator new(size_t, void* p) { return p; }
void* operator new[](size_t, void* p) { return p; }
#define VERIFY(C) if (!(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure C23 changed the definition here either ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>before C++20 came out.
I am not sure things changed for C++20 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://wg21.link/P0735
http://wg21.link/P0750
http://wg21.link/P0190
http://wg21.link/P0462
There might be more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Bug ID: 115883
Summary: [15 Regression] late-combine exposing LRA problems
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115882
Bug ID: 115882
Summary: Don't alwsys promote memory_order_consume to
memory_order_acquire
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115875
--- Comment #2 from Denis Vlasenko ---
0xUL works, although it uses
b8 ff ff ff ff mov$0x,%eax
instead of
83 c8 ffor $0x,%eax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|C++23: this int argument|C++23: this int argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115881
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin ---
Correct. I recently did a couple of updates to the test ulps and now
only the fma tests fail when building glibc with PA 1.1 code. Don't
know about PA 2.0.
I noticed that some RISCV processors have p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115881
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-checking|
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115881
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
h-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-1975-20240711091856-g4e0aa05f67c-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240711 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115880
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115880
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.4.0, 11.4.0, 12.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115880
Bug ID: 115880
Summary: [14 regression] GCC 14+ fails to parse CoreFoundation
header
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
Andreas K. Huettel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilfridge at gentoo dot org
--- Co
-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-1975-20240711091856-g4e0aa05f67c-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240711 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115878
Bug ID: 115878
Summary: C++23: this int argument with value 0 considered as
dereferencing a null pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
version 15.0.0 20240711 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115876
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115876
Bug ID: 115876
Summary: runtime errors during bootstrap with -O3 -march=znver3
-fno-var-tracking-assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115875
Bug ID: 115875
Summary: -Oz optimization of "push IMM; pop REG" is used
incorrectly for 64-bit constants with 31th bit set
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7a16ad1df8b00e084ef6bf0c23e5f8bdc5f419b
commit r14-10408-gb7a16ad1df8b00e084ef6bf0c23e5f8bdc5f419b
Author: And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd7b273f8dc03f28b0cd07c1a489d5200abaf790
commit r13-8905-gdd7b273f8dc03f28b0cd07c1a489d5200abaf790
Author: Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a655c8d2098aff5235934263b065a389a9fcbbca
commit r12-10612-ga655c8d2098aff5235934263b065a389a9fcbbca
Author: And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e0d60c6b097e9b0a96f7e763a10da11c412ef2c
commit r11-11571-g1e0d60c6b097e9b0a96f7e763a10da11c412ef2c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f75f9827cce522a58ae5d0bf47e2e1ea2704150a
commit r11-11570-gf75f9827cce522a58ae5d0bf47e2e1ea2704150a
Author: And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115870
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Loops range found for idx_20: [irange] int_type [0, 10] NONZERO 0xf and
calculated range :[irange] int_type [-2147483647, 10]
vs
Loops range found for idx_20: [irange] int_type [0, 10] NONZERO 0xf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/9P8bY |
|3TK6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.1.0, 15.0
--- Comment #21 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115874
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||cygwin
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So something like this, and then use it in containers instead of
_Alloc_traits::destroy
template
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
void
_Destroy_static_type(_Tp* __p, _Allocator& __alloc)
{
#if __cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108636
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8dbc02ba43d9e89056f4ba21d664118377f7da40
commit r15-1974-g8dbc02ba43d9e89056f4ba21d664118377f7da40
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would only be valid for std::allocator and other allocators where
std::allocator_traits::destroy uses std::destroy_at.
As it happens, I've just refactored std::allocator_traits today, which makes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115874
Bug ID: 115874
Summary: sh.c appears to be missing include of stdio.h
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96265
Jan André Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j.reu...@fz-juelich.de
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe (untested):
--- a/gcc/tree-eh.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-eh.cc
@@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ lower_try_finally (struct leh_state *state, gtry *tp)
ndests += this_tf.may_return;
ndests += this_tf.may_throw;
- /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
If the GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY doesn't always have to be present, albeit empty, then
I suppose the best fix would be to get rid of the empty finally block so that
we don't have to check in many spots that it's no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115611
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c11fdd2cc11a7058e9643b6abf27831970ad2c9
commit r15-1973-g7c11fdd2cc11a7058e9643b6abf27831970ad2c9
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Previously, lower_try_finally got:
try
{
.ASAN_MARK (UNPOISON, &C.0, 12);
x = {};
x._M_len = 3;
x._M_array = &C.0;
}
finally
{
.ASAN_MARK (POISON, &C.0, 12);
}
but now we remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110040
Jeevitha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111890
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=115873
Bug ID: 115873
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/slp-54.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115782
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107186
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
So it follows that this doesn't work either:
```
struct A {
constexpr static bool func()
{
return true;
}
constexpr static bool i = func();
};
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115782
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44fc801e97a8dc626a4806ff4124439003420b20
commit r15-1972-g44fc801e97a8dc626a4806ff4124439003420b20
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo