https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116235
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
I might try this even if it sounds like an OK idea, but I haven't yet played
with bootstrap-{asan,ubsan}, and I suspect that if I do, there'll be other
issues to handle first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116235
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
As an example, Emacs did
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=cb242bf1514ade34ab93b1db1ea7550093ae5839.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116235
Bug ID: 116235
Summary: Add ASAN annotations to ggc like we do for Valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: GC, internal-improvement
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> r14-998-gc5709fc87131be made some changes to how it is used.
Reverting this does not help on 14 even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
after your suggestion on IRC to tamper with GTY annotations, it looks like:
-static GTY((deletable)) hash_table *norm_cache;
+static GTY(()) hash_table *norm_cache;
stops the comparison issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was testing with r15-2712-g01cca42f65f25d (and r15-2711-gc18c53db823b22)
to make sure my patch didn't introduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 104753 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Bug ID: 116234
Summary: [15 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure w/
`-mcpu=phecda -O2 -funroll-all-loops`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105359
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115801
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116233
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1206
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116232
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukaszcz18 at wp dot pl
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116233
Bug ID: 116233
Summary: Explicit specialization of an enum member
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116232
Bug ID: 116232
Summary: Problem with printf
Product: gcc
Version: 11.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116231
Bug ID: 116231
Summary: Missing optimization on global variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116225
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
We should add a -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS build into the rust CI but we should also
really encourage at least one of the CI efforts on gcc-regressions etc to do
such a config too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101507
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
gcc-15-20240804/gcc/spellcheck.cc:
In function ‘get_edit_distance’:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0.0_pre20240804/work/gcc-15-20240804/gcc/spellcheck.cc:71:61:
warning: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size
9223372036854775807 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:01cca42f65f25d709264fe277d25d9db3d68c437
commit r15-2712-g01cca42f65f25d709264fe277d25d9db3d68c437
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115912
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
Thanks Jeff!
BTW: I noticed
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-testresults/76fb66d4e2bd1493068cf531c73f5...@linux.ibm.com/T/#u
mentions the PR116037 test is failing on s390x but I haven't looked into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #137 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #136)
> Hope these observations help for clarifying issues.
Kaz, thanks so much for chiming in and looking at these after such a long time!
It's really appreciated!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #136 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Hope these observations help for clarifying issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #135 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58836&action=edit
a trial patch for c#133
Simlar changes for extendsi2 and mov which define new
insn_and_split to force hardw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #134 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58835&action=edit
another testcase for c#133
Another testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #133 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58834&action=edit
a testcase for r0-starvation issue with -mlra
The second one I've found has a bit lengthy testcases for -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #132 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58833&action=edit
a patch to fix a reload issue in movsf with LRA
Another ICEs with LRA can be found for some conner cases. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #131 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58832&action=edit
a patch to fix broken_move for -mlra
BTW, I fould an oversite when adding movsf_ie_ra insn_and_split too.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #130 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58831&action=edit
a trial patch for c#129
A quick fix may be:
* config/sh/sh.md
(call_pcrel, call_value_pcrel, sibcall_pcrel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #129 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
A reduced 2-line testcase for -O2 -fpic -mlra:
extern void bar (void) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
void foo (void) { bar (); }
Looks LRA reveals again pcrel call insn_and_splits scratch register all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68524
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88002
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #1)
> I really have no intention of running the libbacktrace tests under DejaGNU.
> But if someone wants to copy the .sum file generation out of libgo (which
> also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115212
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 115912 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115912
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80256
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention that
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30516 is just related to this
bug and not exactly the same issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> sz was added in a643f60c53876be0d57b4b7373770e6cb356fd13 in glibc-2.35.
It would be useful to file a glibc bug too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 116211, which changed state.
Bug 116211 Summary: C Functions returning a struct always manipulate the stack
pointer on RISC-V targets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116229
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* For Advanced SIMD we can create an integer with only the top bit set
using fneg (0.0f). */
is wrong in aarch64_maybe_generate_simd_constant.
it should use either an unspec here or an XOR instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gr.audio at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Riscv |Riscv aarch64
--- Comment #5 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116221
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Changing all of double to `long double` (and pow to powl). and we get:
-0xb.b7ffee7p+9 != -0xb.b8p+9
for:
__builtin_printf("%lla != %lla\n", v, c.expected);
So it is a 2 bits off but rounde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-ffloat-store works too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The failure looks eerily like a micompilation to me,
It is not it is just a bad testcase not expecting the excess precision here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 58830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58830&action=edit
minimized test-case
I have tried to minimize the testcase with cvise and came up with the
attached file. Howe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
Bug ID: 116230
Summary: Testsuite of liborcus fails with GCC 14 on i586 since
r14-1891-g154c69039571c6
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102735
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655012.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655013.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.5.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116199
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116199
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfeb994d64743691d4a787f8eef7ce52d8711756
commit r15-2710-gcfeb994d64743691d4a787f8eef7ce52d8711756
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Aug 4 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113384
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |target
--- Comment #8 from John Dav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
You can add target-specific flags like this:
$(INSNEMIT_SEQ_O): ALL_COMPILERFLAGS += -fno-tree-dominator-opts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> Meanwhile the "workaround" might be to use '-fno-tree-dominator-opts'
That reduces the compile time from hours to just 15 minutes!
Still trying to figure out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116214
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94466
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
cxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-2709-20240804001730-g7cd71c88637-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240804 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 91470, which changed state.
Bug 91470 Summary: [12 Regression] bogus uninitialized warning in
trans-intrinsic.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116215
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Created attachment 58827 [details]
> reduced.ii
I think this is wrong, actually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116215
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58827&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116214
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Created attachment 58825 [details]
> reduction-1.ii
I originally had some convoluted switch to try add more edges but it turned out
none of that was needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116214
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58826&action=edit
reduction-2.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116214
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58825&action=edit
reduction-1.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116228
Bug ID: 116228
Summary: [14/15 regression] -fanalyzer ICE in
get_or_create_null_ptr, at
analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:271
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111535
--- Comment #4 from Eddie Nolan ---
To clarify, I agree that the example in this bug, 111535, is not a proper range
adaptor closure object:
struct closure : std::ranges::range_adaptor_closure {
int operator()(int);
};
This is the example, fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111535
--- Comment #3 from Eddie Nolan ---
I'm not a wording expert, but to me, the sentence, "A range adaptor closure
object is a unary function object that accepts a range argument," has a
different meaning than "A range adaptor closure object is a u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112358
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-11-03 00:00:00 |2024-8-4
--- Comment #5 from John D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111535
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
I'm not 100% sure this is needed or desirable. Doesn't
> A range adaptor closure object is a unary function object that accepts a
> range argument.
imply that a closure object's call operator must already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116217
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111535
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eddiejnolan at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116227
Bug ID: 116227
Summary: Implicit copy assignment operator is defined in the
presence of user copy assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #51 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #11)
> > After the discussion with Kees on the major usage of this new builtin, I
> > think that the above Category
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #50 from Alejandro Colomar ---
I forgot to set:
> That is, __lengthof__ should be useful in all of the following cases:
>
> #define memberof(T, m) (((T *) NULL)->m)
>
> struct s {
> size_t n;
> int fam[] _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87926
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116216
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58823
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58823&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116226
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58822&action=edit
gnat-crash.tar.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116226
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58821&action=edit
gnat-crash.tar.xz
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
