https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116437
Bug ID: 116437
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'reg',
have 'subreg' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1934 with -O2
-march=emeraldrapids -fno-split-wide-types -m32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116436
Bug ID: 116436
Summary: ICE: in cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at
cfgrtl.cc:4748 with -O2 -fmodulo-sched -fprofile-arcs
-fgraphite-identity -fvpt
-freo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116435
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116431
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> > That test has been ping-ponging for me for a while. I suspect it's not
> > related.
>
> Indeed, this test seems flaky. I ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116434
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> That test has been ping-ponging for me for a while. I suspect it's not
> related.
Indeed, this test seems flaky. I ran the test manually several times and
sometimes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116338
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> You can try to see whether adding a SSA copy would make this supported, it
> seems not allowing a PHI is simply a missed feature.
We now fail in
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116410
--- Comment #4 from Xionghu Luo (luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org) ---
Gimple code:
[local count: 19864224]:
MEM [(unsigned int *)&baseLLfreqs] = { 4, 2, 1, 1 };
MEM [(unsigned int *)&baseLLfreqs + 16B] = { 1, 1,
1, 1 };
MEM [(unsigned int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Peter Berg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115205
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efe3da62758ed031486005e0b912de23a0a6b4c6
commit r15-3055-gefe3da62758ed031486005e0b912de23a0a6b4c6
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
The underlying issue was fixed by the commit fixing PR116236, i.e.
commit r15-2937-g3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96, so I'll close this
but refresh the attribute-copying patch (adjusting the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #27 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #23)
> The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96
>
> commit r15-2937-g3673b70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116435
Bug ID: 116435
Summary: there are 3 rtx_hashes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7b76a076cb2c6ded7ae208464019b04cb0531a2
commit r15-3052-gc7b76a076cb2c6ded7ae208464019b04cb0531a2
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The real fix is to have named address spaces support extended to C++. See
> PR43745.
That's a different issue. EEPROM handling is too complicated, we don't w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20c63093db0f230ef49a298cdb0611f38e470203
commit r15-3049-g20c63093db0f230ef49a298cdb0611f38e470203
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:404d947d8ddd3c3035dcea115e9bab4c4a6bfa1c
commit r15-3047-g404d947d8ddd3c3035dcea115e9bab4c4a6bfa1c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110345
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d05949558ef1c8eeeb07399174a64f968f70e3ee
commit r15-3046-gd05949558ef1c8eeeb07399174a64f968f70e3ee
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110345
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1db5ca04da365ac57f7d788a85055edcf13da708
commit r15-3045-g1db5ca04da365ac57f7d788a85055edcf13da708
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107145
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
$ make check-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{-march=x86-64-v3\} vect.exp"
shows more problematic tests:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-92.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 0
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> This C code seems to fail with -O1:
>
> int RB_Open_SingleDocumentation_document;
> char RB_Open_SingleDocumentation_document_0,
> RB_Open_SingleDocumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
That test has been ping-ponging for me for a while. I suspect it's not related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
These too:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-double-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorized
loops: 1" 1
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xorsign.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops"
1
with -march=x86-64-v2 we'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> This too works with -march=x86-64 but not -march=x86-64-v2.
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-31.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " \\* 2" 1
Simple fix -fno-tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> More:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92834.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 8
This is .REDUC_MAX vs MAX_EXPR .
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94786.c sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This too works with -march=x86-64 but not -march=x86-64-v2.
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-31.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " \\* 2" 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
More:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92834.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 8
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94786.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 4
These pass with -march=x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116434
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
--- Comment #2 from C.F. ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> You can't do that as the template variables are comdat.
>
> The real fix is to have named address spaces support extended to C++. See PR
> 43745.
>
> *** This bug has b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116434
Bug ID: 116434
Summary: Problem with warming Wsign-compare
Product: gcc
Version: 11.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||digger1984 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
Bug ID: 116433
Summary: [AVR] cannot place template class static members in
EEPROM
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116432
Bug ID: 116432
Summary: Problem with warming Wtype-limits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116429
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55004
Summary|[12/13/14/15 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
--- Comment #5 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
I'm not able to replicate it either (and the fuzzer hasn't found a duplicate
that is still valid)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111690
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
This program should be rejected as well due to ambiguity of equality comparison
operator:
```
#include
struct A {
friend auto operator <=>(const A &, const A &) = default;
friend auto operator <=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113685
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116428
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116431
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
$ gcc -c -fstack-protector-strong -fdiagnostics-plain-output --param
min-vect-loop-bound=1 --param max-unrolled-insns=200 --param max-unroll-times=8
--param max-completely-peeled-insns=200 --param max-comple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116431
Bug ID: 116431
Summary: s390x: gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-1.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116372
--- Comment #9 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
FYI: bootstrap is restored with the patch. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113454
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to edison from comment #3)
> i can reproduct this error with cpu2006 483.xalancbmk and can not find any
> workaround with gcc 14.1.
For GCC 14 you need to modify the source file by removing the err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115827
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101232
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64028d626a50410dbf29f252a78c7675b35751d6
commit r15-3043-g64028d626a50410dbf29f252a78c7675b35751d6
Author: Franciszek Witt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #26 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I think there was a corresponding bug on the AVR side, not sure if that's
> now also resolved.
As far as I understand, the AVR issue is of a different kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #35 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Ball
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25812d8b789748911e800a972e5a3a030e3ac905
commit r14-10605-g25812d8b789748911e800a972e5a3a030e3ac905
Author: Alexandre Oliv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114802
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116417
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103660
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b73373520f0ed5d131d2cd6ee9078939a98d7a0d
commit r15-3040-gb73373520f0ed5d131d2cd6ee9078939a98d7a0d
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103660
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eface71c18caea3009ddc1ac624cb41647e9d5c4
commit r15-3041-geface71c18caea3009ddc1ac624cb41647e9d5c4
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103660
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82a2f1386b2e8c951e910e1096a04bed21bbd39b
commit r15-3039-g82a2f1386b2e8c951e910e1096a04bed21bbd39b
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116405
--- Comment #6 from Manolis Tsamis ---
I have sent the fix for this, together with the testcase from this ticket, in
the lists. Link is
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660912.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116372
--- Comment #8 from Manolis Tsamis ---
I have sent the fix for this, together with the testcase from this ticket, in
the lists. Link is
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660912.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
--- Comment #7 from Robin Dapp ---
Ah, hmm, this doesn't seem to occur on trunk anymore for me. It's still likely
latent. Patrick, does it still happen for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116418
--- Comment #2 from Valentin Tolmer ---
Sorry, typo in the last sentence: "the templated function doesn't have to be
instantiated to trigger the bug".
See https://godbolt.org/z/3xosx5dn4 for a reproduction.
Adding an instantiation gives an add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #11)
> Patch proposed: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-August/060882.html
> Waiting for review.
Hi Andre,
great to see you back in action for gcc/gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101463
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101463
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5348e3cb9bc99d2ee4d7438b8eca5c92fff5b931
commit r15-3038-g5348e3cb9bc99d2ee4d7438b8eca5c92fff5b931
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
The proposed change triggers a test suite regression on x86_64:
WARNING: gfortran.dg/sizeof_6.f90 -O1 execution test program timed out.
FAIL: gfortran.dg/sizeof_6.f90 -O1 execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|middle-end
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6ed6kntue@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115683
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #8)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> > Richi, maybe tree optimizers can perform their optimizations with
> > vec_cmp{,u} and vcond_mask, and at the e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #24)
> Hopefully fixed, but please let me know if this code causes similar problems
> elsewhere.
I think there was a corresponding bug on the AVR side, not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116274
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8ea13ebf1211714503fd72f25c04376483bfa53
commit r15-3036-gb8ea13ebf1211714503fd72f25c04376483bfa53
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116427
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry dot com> ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>
>> I wonder what the way forward is here: just wait for gccrs to be
>> self-contai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116381
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually g:7b277e8b464b seems to have partially implemented it, but without
rejecting arrays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116381
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116427
Pierre-Emmanuel Patry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pierre-emmanuel.patry@embec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116430
--- Comment #1 from Pascal Malaise ---
Compiles OK with GNAT-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116430
Bug ID: 116430
Summary: Crash "Assert_Failure nlists.adb:674" while compiling
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116192
Arthur Cohen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116429
Bug ID: 116429
Summary: [LRA] [M86k] Wrong spill offset
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116355
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pheeck at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116428
Bug ID: 116428
Summary: Redeclaration of explicitly defaulted comparison
operator makes it undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115683
--- Comment #8 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Richi, maybe tree optimizers can perform their optimizations with
> vec_cmp{,u} and vcond_mask, and at the end provide the true coditional
> vector move (that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116238
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
