[Bug testsuite/116143] [15 regression] gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-* test fails intermittently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116143 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Component|other

[Bug tree-optimization/116142] vec_widen_smult_{odd,even}_M ineffective for a simple widening dot product (vect_used_by_reduction is not set?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > To make it used by the reduction you'd need to have a dot_product covering > > the accumulation as well. > > I can

[Bug target/116157] New: AVX2 _mm256_exp_ps function is missing in the compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116157 Bug ID: 116157 Summary: AVX2 _mm256_exp_ps function is missing in the compiler Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug testsuite/116154] gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > I think this is just a testsuite issue with this: > if (argc == 0) > b = 1; > > This might fix it: > ``` > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr679

[Bug testsuite/116154] gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 --- Comment #4 from Dimitar Dimitrov --- I confirm that the PRU simulator is always passing argc=0. > I think this is just a testsuite issue with this: > if (argc == 0) > b = 1; > > This might fix it: I suggest to revert the fix in r6-3

[Bug testsuite/116155] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-1.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116155 Dimitar Dimitrov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Dimitar

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/113744] Unnecessary "m" constraint in *adddi_4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113744 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/116104] [15 Regression] GCN vs. "[rtl-optimization/116037] Explicitly track if a destination was skipped in ext-dce"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Damn. My bad. I didn't even look around for other instances and there's several. So I installed my dummy assembler & linker that always return success and ran the gcc testsuite after fixing the rest to

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 58782 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58782&action=edit Reduced and no builtins

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 58781 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58781&action=edit Reduced a lot This is what was automated reduced to. But will be reducing it further.

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- This might be a returns_twice issue (__sigsetjmp is implict returns twice even without a builtin).

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note it is also reproducible on aarch64-linux-gnu which is why I moved this to tree-optimization.

[Bug testsuite/116148] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c fails on big-endian (finally tested starting with r15-2403-g136f364e26d9ad)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug target/113744] Unnecessary "m" constraint in *adddi_4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113744 --- Comment #3 from kong lingling --- *add_4 and *adddi_4 are for shorter opcode from cmp to inc/dec or add $128. But NDD code is longer than the cmp code, so there is no need to support ndd.

[Bug tree-optimization/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/116156] [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.3 Component|debug

[Bug debug/116156] New: [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116156 Bug ID: 116156 Summary: [14/15 regression] -fcompare-debug -gno-statement-frontiers failure with -O2 when building gdk-pixbuf Product: gcc Version: 15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/100162] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3 (vs. -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100162 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug target/105359] _Float128 expanders and builtins disabled on ppc targets with 64-bit long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105359 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:993a3c0894c487dce5efc6cfb5b31a8358905e8f commit r15-2428-g993a3c0894c487dce5efc6cfb5b31a8358905e8f Author: Kewen Lin Date: Tue Jul 3

[Bug tree-optimization/115697] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Miscompilation with -fgraphite-identity at -O2 since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115697 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/115824] [12 Regression] Strange -Warray-bounds warning when assigning an initializer list to a vector of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115824 --- Comment #11 from Iru Cai --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #7) > (In reply to Randy MacLeod from comment #5) > > As far as I know, the commit itself is fine, and it's the pesky middle-end > warnings again getting confused. > > Jonath

[Bug c/101478] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE with statement expression and offsetof like expression since r10-7127-gcb99630f254aae

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101478 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug testsuite/116155] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-1.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116155 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW See Also|

[Bug tree-optimization/116142] vec_widen_smult_{odd,even}_M ineffective for a simple widening dot product (vect_used_by_reduction is not set?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > To make it used by the reduction you'd need to have a dot_product covering > the accumulation as well. I can add that, but what if we slightly alter it to somethin

[Bug testsuite/116154] gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/116155] New: c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-1.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116155 Bug ID: 116155 Summary: c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-1.c fails on pru-unknown-elf Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: testsui

[Bug testsuite/116154] gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||testsuite-fail Sam James changed:

[Bug testsuite/116154] gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Ah, CC'd Dimitar Dimitrov who seems to run that buildbot and has his name in config/pru :)

[Bug testsuite/116154] New: gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116154 Bug ID: 116154 Summary: gcc.dg/torture/pr67947.c fails on pru-unknown-elf Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug debug/116153] -fdebug-compare failure when building bmake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116153 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug debug/116153] -fdebug-compare failure when building bmake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116153 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compare-debug-failure --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug debug/116153] -fdebug-compare failure when building bmake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116153 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- With 13 (my copies of 14+15 have the bad IPA dump commit, not rebuilt yet), I see the first diff in einline in value numbering: @@ -1322,10 +1437,10 @@ Merging blocks 18 and 15 _Bool CondParser_StringExpr (st

[Bug middle-end/116151] [12/13/14/15 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array since r7-4040-g40f683e88d5aee

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116151 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > r7-4040-g40f683e88d5aee https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-October/460137.html

[Bug debug/116153] New: -fdebug-compare failure when building bmake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116153 Bug ID: 116153 Summary: -fdebug-compare failure when building bmake Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debu

[Bug middle-end/116151] [12/13/14/15 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array since r7-4040-g40f683e88d5aee

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116151 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression

[Bug target/79709] Subobtimal code with -mavx and explicit vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79709 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/116151] [12/13/14/15 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116151 --- Comment #2 from Arsen Arsenović --- I suspect this is due to EH - -fno-exceptions fixes the C++ case, as does noexcept, and -fexceptions breaks the C case.

[Bug tree-optimization/94094] [meta-bug] store-merging and/or bswap load/store-merging missed optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94094 Bug 94094 depends on bug 92949, which changed state. Bug 92949 Summary: bswap/store merging does not handle BIT_INSERT_EXPR/BIT_FIELD_REF https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92949 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/93237] vector defined using inserts is not converted into constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93237 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/92949] bswap/store merging does not handle BIT_INSERT_EXPR/BIT_FIELD_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92949 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/89749] Very odd vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89749 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug target/116152] New: RISC-V: Proposed deprecation of LP64E abi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116152 Bug ID: 116152 Summary: RISC-V: Proposed deprecation of LP64E abi Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug middle-end/116151] [12/13/14/15 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116151 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||7.1.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/70871] questionable optimisation in fold-const.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/80770] suboptimal code negating a 1-bit _Bool field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80770 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/116151] New: [7.1 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116151 Bug ID: 116151 Summary: [7.1 Regression] G++ fails to diagnose -Waggressive-loop-optimizations when going past the end of an array Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0

[Bug tree-optimization/51428] Some code after SSA expand does nothing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51428 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug middle-end/107047] load introduced of struct/union fields after assigning it to a local variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107047 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org -

[Bug middle-end/107047] load introduced of struct/union fields after assigning it to a local variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107047 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug middle-end/107601] Change SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS into WIDEN_MODE_ACCESS_BITFIELD target hook

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107601 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Even though this is bitfield related, this is some cleanup I am still aiming on working on during GCC 15.

[Bug tree-optimization/45217] Tree optimizations do not recognize partial stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45217 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- So I think isel should be able to recognize these. So I will be trying to finish this up for GCC 15.

[Bug tree-optimization/109637] unnecessary range check in complete switch on bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109637 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc d

[Bug tree-optimization/106076] Sub-optimal code is generated for checking bitfields via proxy functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106076 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc d

[Bug tree-optimization/103457] boolean operations on bit-fields are not merged

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103457 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc d

[Bug tree-optimization/101705] Missed optimization opportunity when copying lots of bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101705 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc d

[Bug tree-optimization/96172] Failure to optimize direct assignment to bitfield through shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96172 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81161] poor code concatenating bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81161 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/95097] Missed optimization with bitfield value ranges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95097 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug middle-end/71509] Bitfield causes load hit store with larger store than load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/83784] Missed optimization with bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83784 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/68360] GCC bitfield processing code is very inefficient

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68360 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/66364] poor optimization of packed structs containing bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66364 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug target/116150] New: RISC-V: Differences between GCC/LLVM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116150 Bug ID: 116150 Summary: RISC-V: Differences between GCC/LLVM Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug middle-end/55658] bitfields and __attribute__((packed)) generate horrible code on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55658 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/45274] __restrict__ type qualifier does not work on pointers to bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45274 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/19466] [meta-bug] bit-fields are non optimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19466 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|pinskia at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/15596] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization with bitfields with return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #40 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 115207, which changed state. Bug 115207 Summary: [constexpr] constexpr assignment rejected as non const on self-assignment test https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115207 What|Removed

[Bug c++/85944] Address of temporary at global scope not considered constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nov.ondrej at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/115207] [constexpr] constexpr assignment rejected as non const on self-assignment test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115207 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/116146] Split insn-recog.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116146 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||internal-improvement Status

[Bug target/116149] New: RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3 with zvl256b -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116149 Bug ID: 116149 Summary: RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3 with zvl256b -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/111600] [14/15 Regression] RISC-V bootstrap time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/116016] enhancement: add __builtin_set_counted_by(P->FAM, COUNT) or equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016 --- Comment #37 from Bill Wendling --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #36) > (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #33) > > __builtin_get_attr_arg (ptr, attr_name) > > > > This could have an optional argument to specify which argum

[Bug middle-end/115637] gimple_regimplify_operands doesn't handle VALUE_EXPR inside a MEM_REF / OpenMP declare target link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115637 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658737.html

[Bug c/116016] enhancement: add __builtin_set_counted_by(P->FAM, COUNT) or equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #33) > __builtin_get_attr_arg (ptr, attr_name) > > This could have an optional argument to specify which argument to get if the > attr has more than one: > > __

[Bug c++/115207] [constexpr] constexpr assignment rejected as non const on self-assignment test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115207 S. Davis Herring changed: What|Removed |Added CC||herring at lanl dot gov --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/116138] [15 regression] profiledbootstrap broken on aarch64 since r15-2196-g88d16194d0c8a6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116138 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fro

[Bug c++/115908] [coroutines] Wrong behavior of using get_return_object() when creating coroutines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115908 Arsen Arsenović changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org Last recon

[Bug c/116130] Implement C23 N2956 paper - [[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] function type arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130 --- Comment #12 from Joseph S. Myers --- N3096 is a very old draft with lots of mistakes. Use N3220 instead (it has no technical changes relative to C23, though it's also missing many late editorial fixes required by ISO). Composite types for c

[Bug other/116143] [15 regression] gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-* test fails intermittently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116143 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > Yup, that sounds eminently plausible :-) Thanks. For the given that error message, yes, it seems plausible. But I don't know how an error like that can b

[Bug c/116016] enhancement: add __builtin_set_counted_by(P->FAM, COUNT) or equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016 --- Comment #35 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #33) > > We could then have a builtin to get the attribute's argument: > > __builtin_get_attr_arg (ptr, attr_name); not sure whether it's worth the e

[Bug testsuite/116148] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c fails on big-endian (finally tested starting with r15-2403-g136f364e26d9ad)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu | Host|powerpc64-linux-gnu

[Bug testsuite/116148] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c fails on big-endian (finally tested starting with r15-2403-g136f364e26d9ad)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com S

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- What you need to do is build a native compiler first and install it somewhere (does not matter where; maybe say using --prefix=${HOME}/native-build). And then set PATH env to include ${HOME}/native-build/bin

[Bug rtl-optimization/116136] [15 Regression] ext-dce exposes latent subreg simplification bug (big-endian) on m68k

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116136 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #8 from David Dudley --- Debian has version 12.2.0 that it installs. Perhaps I need to backup and checkout that version for a cross compiler? Since this is an experimental project I'm working toward, I thought using the "master" ve

[Bug c++/83979] [8 Regression] ICE with pointer comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83979 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sam James : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acc70606c59e3f14072cc8a164362e728d8df5d6 commit r15-2421-gacc70606c59e3f14072cc8a164362e728d8df5d6 Author: Sam James Date: Tue Jul 30

[Bug target/68015] ICE in s390_emit_compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68015 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sam James : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acc70606c59e3f14072cc8a164362e728d8df5d6 commit r15-2421-gacc70606c59e3f14072cc8a164362e728d8df5d6 Author: Sam James Date: Tue Jul 30

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #7 from David Dudley --- Building a native compiler using this version may be the actual error. There isn't exactly a plethora of information on how to generate this. I've generated a native compiler currently, but seem to have a p

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #6 from David Dudley --- Created attachment 58777 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58777&action=edit Building log Heres the building log

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Also the full build log would be useful rather than just the config logs.

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- So iirc for building a cross Ada compiler you need to first build a new native one for the same version. Did you do that?

[Bug testsuite/116148] New: [15 regression] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c fails after r15-2403-g136f364e26d9ad

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148 Bug ID: 116148 Summary: [15 regression] c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c fails after r15-2403-g136f364e26d9ad Product: gcc Version: 15.0

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #3 from David Dudley --- Created attachment 58776 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58776&action=edit config log file from compile

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 --- Comment #2 from David Dudley --- Created attachment 58775 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58775&action=edit Configuration Log file Configuration log file saved from configuration script

[Bug ada/116147] ADA Cross Compiler for ARM does not build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116147 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-30 Status|UNCONFIRM

  1   2   >