https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114942
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] ICE on |[14 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117115
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
The assert hit is:
gcc_assert (!inbacktick);
One of the DMD front-end errors likely has an odd number of backticks in the
format string.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85316
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115202
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's a missed PRE:
ANTIC_OUT[3] := { iftmp.0_6 (0006), {min_expr,iftmp.0_6,-1} (0011),
{nop_expr,pretmp_10} (0012) }
[changed] ANTIC_IN[3] := { {mem_ref<0B>,addr_expr<&m>}@.MEM_5(D) (0001),
{nop_expr,m.1_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Is this resolved now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov ---
No, I didn't do older AMDs (btver2 & bdver3) and newer AMD (znver4) regressed
this once again. Here's the current picture of top 10:
nm -CS -t d --defined-only gcc/insn-automata.o | sed 's/^[0-9]* 0*//'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115292
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116290
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:566740013b3445162b8c4bc2205e4e568d014968
commit r15-4308-g566740013b3445162b8c4bc2205e4e568d014968
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
Last reconfirmed|202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117132
Bug ID: 117132
Summary: A call to a function which returns a wider result can
be considered a sibling call
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 115484, which changed state.
Bug 115484 Summary: [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX
vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116126
Bug 116126 depends on bug 115484, which changed state.
Bug 115484 Summary: [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX
vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.4|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #6)
> There are multiple issues (should probably rename the subject)
>
> Apart from the inefficient bit test, the jump_table clustering is also very
> inefficient becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.4|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
>
> --- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
> richi or honza: can I test and queue backpo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
>
> --- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> A simple testcase
>
> typedef long long v4di __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
>
> v4di
> foo (long long a)
> {
> return __extension__(v4di){(long long)foo, 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
A simple testcase
typedef long long v4di __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
v4di
foo (long long a)
{
return __extension__(v4di){(long long)foo, 1, 1, 1};
}
reproduced with -O2 -mavx2, failed at least sin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117123
--- Comment #1 from Davide Italiano ---
I'd like to point out that in GCC-13.3 this seems to emit much shorter code:
i.e. https://godbolt.org/z/YEvbs14PY
_Z8patatinoi:
movl%edi, %eax
cmpl$5, %edi
jle .L2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117131
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley ---
Following on from the example code the bug report mentions that with gm2
gcc-14.2
proc_test.mod:3:22: In procedure «Calc»: syntax warning, «END» missing
3 | PROCEDURE Calc : CARDINAL;
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117131
Bug ID: 117131
Summary: poor error message issued when missing () from a
procedure function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks like it just expose an backend bug, I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
Ah, fair enough - thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Oleg Endo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b717c462b96e7870f8081d2bc330e4749a4b0538
commit r15-4307-gb717c462b96e7870f8081d2bc330e4749a4b0538
Author: Oleg Endo
Date: Sun Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > > Fixed on trunk sofar(?)
> >
> > Yes, could be closed if only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-14
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116064
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> So - fixed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117130
Bug ID: 117130
Summary: internal compiler error: in add_stmt, at
cp/semantics.cc:551
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error:|[14/15 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117129
Bug ID: 117129
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault at
gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool
(*)(tree_node*), int)
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117128
Bug ID: 117128
Summary: [15 regression] GCC trunk generates larger code than
GCC 14 at -Os/OZ
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115815
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
> Fixed on master, I plan to backport the fix (the first patch) to the
> affected release branches next week.
Reminder ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113814
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> > In this case, I suspect the warning might be legit, but bisected to
> > r14-3460-gabf915193fbf72 anyway.
>
> Was this wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #10 from Alfredo Correa ---
Wow, that was fast! Great! (I wasn't optimistic, to be honest.)'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It will be fixed in the next few days anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116914
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 59340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59340&action=edit
patch under test
The coroutines implementation (intentionally) did not include support for ({})
which is an ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> possibly related to bug 60972
...and, from the other direction, bug 68160 and bug 36566
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
--- Comment #8 from Alfredo Correa ---
FWIIW, this is the origin of the problem,
https://gitlab.com/correaa/boost-multi#broadcast-infinite-views, implementing
an iterator type that supports stride == 0.
This doesn't form a proper random access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117094
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
richi or honza: can I test and queue backports for the IPA fixes (the slew from
the other month, inc. this one) at least for 13, possibly 12 but don't mind
waiting more there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8ac855f796b0cf47d80c713d2f01943dffec0b7
commit r14-10780-gd8ac855f796b0cf47d80c713d2f01943dffec0b7
Author: Sam James
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116833
--- Comment #6 from Fiodar ---
I look for floating modes in symbian SDK docs.
Here link(now that site and webarchive down) -
https://docs.huihoo.com/symbian/nokia-symbian3-developers-library-v0.8/GUID-D525B9A9-6B32-535B-A282-60C85A48D3FB.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117127
Bug ID: 117127
Summary: Feature request: Warning on useless 'const' in a
function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #5)
> I believe this is causing application of std::views::transform() not to
> model the underlying view's category, since its iterators can't return an
> lvalue.
No,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
But the functions he redefines are, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Keywords are not reserved identifiers, so for some reason C doesn't say this is
undefined.
I suppose you just get what you deserve when you replace 'extern' with
something that makes the program ill-forme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116488
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2024-10-01 00:00:00 |2024-10-13
--- Comment #4 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117126
Bug ID: 117126
Summary: GCC 14 generates redundant movq xmm1, xmm1
instructions with -O2 optimization, leading to code
bloat (regression from GCC 13.x)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117125
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Please keep in mind the comment I made wrt screenshots. It's OK if they're
complementary but please try to avoid them by themselves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117125
Bug ID: 117125
Summary: No error by if it terminating comment only provided
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
"If the program defines a reserved identifier or attribute token described in
6.7.12.1 as a macro name,
or removes (with #undef) any macro definition of an identifier in the first
group listed above or
attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>If I #define with any macro which is also available in the header files,
Yes that is expected and the behavior that the C standard preprocessor does.
For define extern, GCC should most likely warn about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
Bug ID: 117124
Summary: Header file contents get modified when macro defined
before header file inclusion
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
--- Comment #6 from Avi Kivity ---
My reproducer:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
void f() {
auto stream = std::stringstream("aaa bbb");
auto src = std::ranges::subrange(std::istream_iterator(stream),
std::istream_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avi at scylladb dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117123
Bug ID: 117123
Summary: [12/13/14/15 regression] Generated code at -Os on
trunk is larger than GCC 14.4
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> In this case, I suspect the warning might be legit, but bisected to
> r14-3460-gabf915193fbf72 anyway.
Was this with the reduced testcase or the original one?
With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> The original testcase hardly resembles the situation in the reduced one
> besides the initial slew of clobbers from an unrolled loop.
I could try again with some g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117121
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27f6b376e8e196c7c85c8b47436cd2f2993768da
commit r15-4303-g27f6b376e8e196c7c85c8b47436cd2f2993768da
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #30 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27f6b376e8e196c7c85c8b47436cd2f2993768da
commit r15-4303-g27f6b376e8e196c7c85c8b47436cd2f2993768da
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luigighiron at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117122
Bug ID: 117122
Summary: -funsigned-bitfields has incorrect behavior with
typeof and typedef redefinitions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117121
Bug ID: 117121
Summary: [15 regression] heap-buffer-overflow in
ranges::{copy,move}_backward for 1-element ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo