https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117379
Bug ID: 117379
Summary: Failure to vectorize multi add + mulit sub
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
--- Comment #6 from Yunbo Ni ---
I apologize for the trouble I’ve caused due to my lack of understanding. I’ll
keep this red line in mind moving forward.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-06-03 00:00:00 |2024-10-30
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19501
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Both testcases are accepted for GCC 11.4.0 and GCC 12.1.0+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20242
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57229
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|4.6/4.7/4.8 inconsistent|4.6/4.7/4.8 inconsistent
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59511|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Created attachment 59511 [details]
> Patch in test
I forgot the changelog entry for match.pd:
* match.pd (`a != 0 ? a - 1 : 0`): Fix type handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83562
--- Comment #6 from LIU Hao ---
The mingw-w64 bug which you've linked has been fixed for UCRT:
https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/0d42217123d3aec0341b79f6d959c76e09648a1e/mingw-w64-crt/crt/tls_atexit.c#L119
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59511&action=edit
Patch in test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12)
> Ah, thanks.
>
> Let's add the testcase too, if no objection? The topic is a prickly one and
> PR90348 was somewhat worked around.
Sent
https://inbox.sourceware.org/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59510&action=edit
Better testcase for the ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
* "dg -x" (r15-3890-g34bf6aa41ba539)
* "dg - x" (r15-3890-g34bf6aa41ba539)
* Bad quoting as in unterminated strings (r15-4792-g2dcb174385fd36)
* Bad quoting as in regex (r15-4792-g2dcb174385fd36)
* pinskia poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note the reasoning for the difference in arguments between aarch64 and
> x86_64 is that x86_64 defines PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED to be 1.
Interesting define min/max as m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2dcb174385fd366282bf34bf95adbf918d5befda
commit r15-4792-g2dcb174385fd366282bf34bf95adbf918d5befda
Author: Sam James
Date: Thu Oct 31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the reasoning for the difference in arguments between aarch64 and x86_64
is that x86_64 defines PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED to be 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
Another miss optimization is GCC failed to recognize max_expr for sum1, which
generates a lot pack/unpack code in the vectorizer
prephitmp_66 = (int) _8;
# DEBUG a => NULL
# DEBUG b => NULL
# DEBUG a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116949
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b60031e8f9f8fe89ec0cb600d0e3dc5b799c825f
commit r15-4791-gb60031e8f9f8fe89ec0cb600d0e3dc5b799c825f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114785
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b60031e8f9f8fe89ec0cb600d0e3dc5b799c825f
commit r15-4791-gb60031e8f9f8fe89ec0cb600d0e3dc5b799c825f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28ea5a4ec3e9e49439fdb912ef4edeebfdae881d
commit r13-9157-g28ea5a4ec3e9e49439fdb912ef4edeebfdae881d
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117378
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 59509
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59509&action=edit
power_profiles_daemon.cpp.cpp.orig.xz
In case I reduced it incorrectly power_profiles_daemon.cpp.cpp.orig
x27;-O1 -ggdb3'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241030 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117176
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/666250.html
Does not build against current `master` anymore:
> ../../source/gcc/tree-vect-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117353
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> That doesn't make sense. The can_create_pseudo_p() check should have
> prevented this from matching once reload has started.
>
> Does the insn exist in the .i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> btw, I haven't tried bootstrapping with -fdiagnostics-details, but it might
> be worth trying to bootstrap and regtest with a patch that does Init(1) in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117377
Bug ID: 117377
Summary: Confusing -Wstringop-overflow warning with incorrect
declaration (pointer to array vs pointer to first
element)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117377
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59507&action=edit
utimens.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117377
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Maybe a dupe of PR92718?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117353
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That doesn't make sense. The can_create_pseudo_p() check should have prevented
this from matching once reload has started.
Does the insn exist in the .ira dump, and if so, what is its RTL form?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Reduced:
```
int celt_encode_with_ec_st, celt_encode_with_ec_st_0,
celt_encode_with_ec_nbFilledBytes;
void ec_enc_shrink();
void celt_encode_with_ec_max_allowed() {
int nbAvailableBytes = celt_encode_with_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098
--- Comment #25 from Laria Chabowski ---
Sorry for the late reply, I have now checked the current trunk with the program
where I originally saw this bug. It's fixed now. Many thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117376
Bug ID: 117376
Summary: Spammy -Wstringop-overflow output with memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
btw, I haven't tried bootstrapping with -fdiagnostics-details, but it might be
worth trying to bootstrap and regtest with a patch that does Init(1) in opt
just to see if anything explodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with|ICE with
|-fdiagnostics-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59505
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59505&action=edit
celt_encoder.c.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117375
Bug ID: 117375
Summary: ICE with -fdiagnostics-details patch in sink pass
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117374
Bug ID: 117374
Summary: Strange behavior of co_yield in initializer-list
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59504&action=edit
wrong code due to the wrong type being used
Attached is the gimple testcase for the wrong type being used and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117275
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70f911bf547326a7b9ae6e116c65c22ce0cd0e65
commit r14-10855-g70f911bf547326a7b9ae6e116c65c22ce0cd0e65
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117275
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acc0b9ff9cf1bcfed63812ca223251485b6471b7
commit r14-10856-gacc0b9ff9cf1bcfed63812ca223251485b6471b7
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28032
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Aha, it needs a non-empty set of args, which can be ignored. So:
proc dg-gfortran-onepass { args } {
global DO_ONE_PASS
set DO_ONE_PASS 1
puts "\nRunning dg-gfortran-onepass\n"
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101002
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> > These die because the struct we're using to check the alignment of uses long
> > double as the "big" aligne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112459
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Simon Martin from comment #8)
> [...]
> How do you reproduce this? Are you configuring with
> --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto?
Sorry for the delay -- I just confirmed I can reproduce it on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117373
Bug ID: 117373
Summary: [15 regression] -Wunused-parameter warning in
analyzer/infinite-loop.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I think I can write a gimple testcase ...
I messed up that. Still looking to see if I can get a gimple testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think I can write a gimple testcase ...
```
unsigned __GIMPLE ()
test2 (int n)
{
unsigned t;
_Bool _3;
t_2 = (unsigned)n_1(D);
t_3 = t_2 - 1u;
n_5 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117158
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> While you're at it, the ULL uses in ext-dce.cc should be
> HOST_WIDE_INT_UC () or 1ULL should be HOST_WIDE_INT_1U.
It might also be a wise idea in these cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Sunil Dora from comment #5)
> Dear GCC Team,
>
> I am writing to request the backport of this fix (Wrange-loop-construct) to
> GCC version 13.3. Due to particular project requirements, we are u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117372
Bug ID: 117372
Summary: std::list pretty printer: AttributeError: 'NoneType'
object has no attribute 'pointer'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #5 from Sunil Dora ---
Dear GCC Team,
I am writing to request the backport of this fix (Wrange-loop-construct) to GCC
version 13.3. Due to particular project requirements, we are unable to upgrade
our GCC version at this time. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117350
--- Comment #15 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess to debug have to figure what's different about the decl between the non
autofdo case and autofdo.
I tried to work around it by modifying the urlifier code to avoid the anonymous
name space,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Should be fixed everywhere, I'll leave this open for a bit until we get
confirmation that this fixes the Debian package build with GCC 14, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:434483ac32a08d1f3608c26fe2da302f0e09d6a2
commit r14-10853-g434483ac32a08d1f3608c26fe2da302f0e09d6a2
Author: Alex Coplan
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117371
--- Comment #1 from Ludovic Brenta ---
And it just occurred to me that, when m and k are declared
INTEGER, perhaps the call to WriteCard (k, 1) should also be
flagged as an error?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117371
Bug ID: 117371
Summary: [14.2 Regression] type incompatibility between
‘INTEGER’ and ‘CARDINAL’
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
ASAN says:
==3038484==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: global-buffer-overflow on address
0x5bb17fa7e4a1 at pc 0x5bb17fa794c3 bp 0x7ffdda66b1e0 sp 0x7ffdda66b1d0
READ of size 1 at 0x5bb17fa7e4a1 thread T0
#0 0x5bb17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #14 from H. Peter Anvin ---
This is something that should be documented, if it is the construct to be
relied on to have this effect.
In the Linux kernel it has also been used to force the frame pointer to be set
up, but that feels f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc0eeccf27a084461a2d5661e23468350acb43da
commit r15-4775-gbc0eeccf27a084461a2d5661e23468350acb43da
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I agree it would be nice, but I'm not sure how to do it.
The message *does* say why it fails, but as you point out, the reason it fails
is that it's defined in terms of type traits.
I think we'd need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Even if we remove the constrained function template and just write an
> assertion based on the underlying built-in, there's no more information:
>
> struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> I think ->sp_is_unchanging isn't the correct vehicle to test whether the red
> zone is usable - as you point out the red zone might be used/clobbered so the
> x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Interestingly, Clang *does* say why the concept failed, and says that there was
an explicit constructor that wasn't a candidate. But it also prints notes about
implicit copy constructor and implicit move c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> Neither is clobbering a register.
Yes, as I have already reported in Comment #7.
But adding RSP to the output list will do exactly what we want, as reported i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
Bug ID: 117370
Summary: std::nothrow variants of operator new are not
optimized away when block is unused
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116607
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116607
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:673d6b2cbf610508d315526f4963793a343a2070
commit r15-4778-g673d6b2cbf610508d315526f4963793a343a2070
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117313
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111861
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"memory" clobber is IMO about possibly changing any user var in memory behind
the back of the compiler, not about changing whatever compiler internals stored
somewhere on the stack in stack slots that don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104465
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117354
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doesn't need -fsanitize=address, just ensuring the _BitInt(256) var is just
8-byte aligned is enough:
struct S {
unsigned char y;
_BitInt(256) x;
} s;
__attribute__((noipa)) static void
foo (const char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
I think ->sp_is_unchanging isn't the correct vehicle to test whether the red
zone is usable - as you point out the red zone might be used/clobbered so the
x86 backend would need to check for that, and a "m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-30
Target|arm-pok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117369
Bug ID: 117369
Summary: False positive Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds fanalyzer
warnings for sprintf to offset at -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117367
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 117368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
