https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #412 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #410)
> Created attachment 59432 [details]
> a trial patch for c#404
>
> It's difficult to see what is going on, because the test case is too huge.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117234
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note here is testcase that would show a missed lim on the gimple level due to
trapping:
```
#include
#define vect4f __attribute__((vector_size(4*sizeof(float
svfloat32_t f(float a, int t, bool *b)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note flang produces the same code while ifort/ifx produces the if/then.
But as mentioned in those links the code is undefined because merge does not
need to be evulate the expressions conditionally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is how gdb fixed it:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=86091eae202f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Since new AVX10.2 instructions are generated,
check_effective_target_avx10_2_512
doesn't cover them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117302
Bug ID: 117302
Summary: merge + present generates invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
You're 100% right -- no idea where I got that from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is how gdb fixed it:
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=86091eae202f
wait that is for a remote testing.
This was for local testin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I think (not 100% sure) we have to clobber it unconditionally if gdb was built
with a configure option for some default debuginfod server, but I have not
checked on fedora if they just export that var in their d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
Bug ID: 117301
Summary: Many AVX10 tests fail
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59439&action=edit
Maybe something like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
Bug ID: 117300
Summary: guality tests always fail on Fedora 41
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117300
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=117299
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90
commit r15-4692-g40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90
Author: Sam James
Date: Sat Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117299
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117299
Bug ID: 117299
Summary: tbaa.c dg-final scan needs checking
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117277
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can also confirm that this fixes:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/store_lane_spill_1.c scan-assembler-not
tstrtz[0-9]
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87253
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.0, 15.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87253
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117253
--- Comment #7 from Davide Italiano ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> So probably IVOPTs related. With -fno-ivopts code generated by GCC 13 and
> trunk are about the same size.
For the second example (see code above) -- `-fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106077
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #8)
> Created attachment 51045 [details]
> patch to fix pr83466
>
> patch to fix this issue for SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSDESC and SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSIE.
Please send the patch to the gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100236
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 100236, which changed state.
Bug 100236 Summary: arm: UB in arm_compute_save_core_reg_mask (shift exponent
4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100236
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98905
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #31 from Sam James ---
Michael, would it be possible to land those patches? Thank you! We have been
shipping them for quite some time now downstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111249
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > Bisecting from 11 (good) -> 12 (bad) gave r12-4871-g502ffb1f389011 as the
> > breaking commit.
> >
> > Bisecting from 13 (ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|12.4
Summary|[11 Regression] Wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117298
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117298
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Maybe can if it's const?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117298
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure we want to ICF these 2.
If both are unprototyped, we do ICF them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117298
Bug ID: 117298
Summary: ICF won't fold unprotoyped function before C23
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: in |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117297
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I might look to see if that fixes or changes the situtation next week or so.
Unless Richard beats me to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117297
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% sure if this will help but if we can run the cost before calling
changes_are_worthwhile in insn_combination::run to precalucate the old cost,
this might improve the situtation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117297
Bug ID: 117297
Summary: late combine undoes too much
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96110c14cf61a1f8ecae04b8d947a60758363701
commit r15-4681-g96110c14cf61a1f8ecae04b8d947a60758363701
Author: Sam James
Date: Mon Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note at -O1, GCC does not remove empty loops (via the agressive DCE) which is
why this won't be optimized at -O1 for GCC.
Anyways the original testcases are now fixed due to the RTL change though I
keeping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #4 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I am not sure this is related to SFINAE though.
> >
> > Rather it is in an unevaluated context where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35bf490452e06b3e3567933342fb15ef5d11f503
commit r15-4689-g35bf490452e06b3e3567933342fb15ef5d11f503
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #6 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Another argument for not showing the deprecation is that if I change:
string a;
to
const string a;
I don't get any deprecation warnings, but only for gcc-11+.
This means that internal implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am not sure this is related to SFINAE though.
>
> Rather it is in an unevaluated context where the diagnostic of deprecated
> should not happen.
But it is ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I think it should be marked rejects-valid because it makes valid program
ill-formed if compiled with -Werror. The problematic diagnostic is user-defined
but in code that is never reached, so shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
> I'd say that warning is not expected, because user's code didn't (directly
> or indirectly) call the deprecated constructor.
Or to state it differently: user calls the Bar(const string&) over
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #46 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2266e38cfd8071262004f164ebe37f60e2d4615d
commit r15-4688-g2266e38cfd8071262004f164ebe37f60e2d4615d
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03ff420aa0a916ab835129d9575c7029116ec4f9
commit r15-4682-g03ff420aa0a916ab835129d9575c7029116ec4f9
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
asm-generic/ is a kernel thing, not relevant at all. bits/resource.h is used
by , the header you should use.
That is used by "system.h" under a
#ifdef H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #45 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04e0fbbc34e1015f081676c6fc7c674cf0eeb1d5
commit r15-4683-g04e0fbbc34e1015f081676c6fc7c674cf0eeb1d5
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e87c1af38d551cb7f81e10f57bf245a2b8f039be
commit r15-4686-ge87c1af38d551cb7f81e10f57bf245a2b8f039be
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:908b306909f10d7592a0ef611cc77b5720f07fa7
commit r15-4687-g908b306909f10d7592a0ef611cc77b5720f07fa7
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48b22a3f05df203c40a6f953aaa0acf828aad9a9
commit r15-4680-g48b22a3f05df203c40a6f953aaa0acf828aad9a9
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is related to SFINAE though.
Rather it is in an unevaluated context where the diagnostic of deprecated
should not happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117296
Bug ID: 117296
Summary: ICE: in expand_gimple_basic_block, at
cfgexpand.cc:5896 with -mtune=k6
-mstringop-strategy=libcall -ffloat-store
Product: gcc
Version: 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10)
> > void
> > stack_limit_increase (unsigned long pref ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> > {
> > #if defined(HAVE_SETRLIMIT)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #33 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #32)
> Thanks for the update! I confirm that the man page is readable now and that
> the use of -fdiagnostics-set-output= eliminated the duplicated output
> without th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> We should add the testcase as well (I can do it).
Posted:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/2a3d484399534a1449ac3a29d6089ed62b839a5a.1729885673.git@gentoo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi ---
Thanks Eugene. Were you able to review the repro and propose a fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117295
Bug ID: 117295
Summary: ICE: in edge_before_returns_twice_call, at
gimple-iterator.cc:957 with returns_twice and -O1
-fsanitize=address -finstrument-functions
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> That's in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170#c0 -- it's
> just that I ended up hitting other failures which appear to be different
> whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
* Tests in lto/ directories not using _N suffix per README will be ignored
* Tests in lto/ directories using dg-do, dg-options instead of
dg-lto-{do,options}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c17058eac3834fb03ec9e518235e4192557b97d
commit r15-4678-g7c17058eac3834fb03ec9e518235e4192557b97d
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68e7ced1c7a9b205d3de5937d36ceab94fb44144
commit r15-4676-g68e7ced1c7a9b205d3de5937d36ceab94fb44144
Author: Sam James
Date: Sun Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cb1da72cac166bd3b005c0430557b68b9761da5
commit r15-4677-g6cb1da72cac166bd3b005c0430557b68b9761da5
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Fri O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115933
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
That's in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170#c0 -- it's just
that I ended up hitting other failures which appear to be different which made
bisecting painful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Bisecting has been pretty painful so I gave up for now. I ended up hitting
> other comparison failures for a lot of commits in the range.
Have you tried
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The change fixed `wolfssl-5.7.2` ICE for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #16)
> Created attachment 58764 [details]
> Fix for this PR
>
> Lot's of checking needed now: (i) To understand why this fix is necessary
> here; and (ii) To see what els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, ok, got it. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see why it wouldn't, it uses the same code for handling % in the string
as is used for extended asm inside of functions. Nothing before that actually
parses/interprets the format string, the restric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
That paragraph is there. As a Constraint, it needs a pedwarn or hard error (for
both the sign and overflow cases). The claim in the paper that it's already a
hard error in GCC is incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-22 20:00:11 |2024-10-25
--- Comment #13 from Georg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
Bug ID: 117294
Summary: Concept swallow diagnostics when they're defined in
terms of type traits
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #32 from Kamil Dudka ---
Thanks for the update! I confirm that the man page is readable now and that
the use of -fdiagnostics-set-output= eliminated the duplicated output without
the ugly workaround. I have also tried sarif:version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Bisecting has been pretty painful so I gave up for now. I ended up hitting
other comparison failures for a lot of commits in the range.
I also wonder if maybe I misconfigured something but it did build fine wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I am not sure if there is not much to be done.
> The front-end is recusive here:
So you found the bug already. Now fix it :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
I misparsed "is miscompiled on the trunk and 14/13 branches with -O2
--param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0". I now see that the reason you hit it
was a different default on rs6000, rather than something else ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10)
> void
> stack_limit_increase (unsigned long pref ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> {
> #if defined(HAVE_SETRLIMIT) && defined(HAVE_GETRLIMIT) \
> && defined(RLIMIT_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you think it is more triggerable on trunk rather than on branches?
The testcase ICEs on the 13/14 branches too, and the only reason I saw it on
the trunk is that I was considering using [[assume (EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I agree it's difficult to solve. GCC tries to up the stack limit to
> unlimited, why isn't this working for you? Maybe we should remember the
> failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Not sure if should be P1 given it's (more) triggerable on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #8)
> See PR c++/49756. It uses 64MB, not unlimited.
[bergner@ltcden2-lp1 ICE]$ ulimit -s 8192
[bergner@ltcden2-lp1 ICE]$ /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk/bin/gcc -S test.c
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117293
Bug ID: 117293
Summary: SFINAE in class partial specialization "leaks" its
side-effects
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Whatever is done, it needs to be (worst case conservatively) correct, so if it
can't or decides not to process some edge which does or might result into true
result, assume the worst (VARYING etc.).
Of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
It seems that until now, we didn't see an empty block feeding a PHI that
mattered:
_3 = x_2(D) + 4294967292;
if (_3 <= 1)
goto ; [41.00%]
else
goto ; [59.00%]
goto ; [100.00%]
_6 = x
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
