https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60024|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #33 from Rocco Tormenta ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32)
> Note this has always worked to avoid FMA formation since
> __builtin_assoc_barrier was added but is only been documented recently.
> See
> https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118262
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> ```
> /* Protect the entire array initialization so that we can destroy
> the partially constructed array if an exception is thrown.
> But don't do t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118262
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
/* Protect the entire array initialization so that we can destroy
the partially constructed array if an exception is thrown.
But don't do this if we're assigning. */
if (flag_exceptions &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118262
Bug ID: 118262
Summary: gcc does not error on inaccessible potentially invoked
destructor on dynamic initialization of an object
array
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60024&action=edit
First step, remove some unused code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/or8y4owvoc@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to andi from comment #7)
> If it's solvable for the sanitizers then it's solvable for abort too
sanitizers expand to use the location before RTL cross jumping. It is solvable
but do we want to. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
--- Comment #7 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
If it's solvable for the sanitizers then it's solvable for abort too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> Actually assuming the culprit is tail-merge it already has a black list of
> functions it won't merge:
It is not just tail-merge but also RTL cross jumping. And th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am going to try to reduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Pinski ---
_35 = &__i1 + _48;
MEM[(int *)_35 + _46 * 1] = _41;
I think this is the IV-OPTS produces which confuses the rtl aliasing.
Note the reason why -fno-strict-aliasing works for at least the reduced
testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #31)
> _35 = &__i1 + _48;
> MEM[(int *)_35 + _46 * 1] = _41;
>
> I think this is the IV-OPTS produces which confuses the rtl aliasing.
>
> Note the reason why -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118258
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
sorry, I mean r15-3986-g3e1bd6470e4deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116906
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 118258 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118258
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118258
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I think it's a dupe of your PR116906. Fix bisects to r15-3985-gde25f1729d212c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118261
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Please encourage your distro to be picking up at least the point release if
they will ship new compiler releases (so 14.2, though it wouldn't have helped
here), or even better, track releases/gcc-14 every few mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118261
Bug ID: 118261
Summary: ICE with sve and lto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||113662
--- Comment #41 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #30 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #27)
> Created attachment 60022 [details]
> Some more manually inlining and removal of extra struct
This version fails with GCC 12.1.0 at -O2 and passes with GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60022|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60021|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60020|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
Bug ID: 118260
Summary: Automatically add some 'skip's from gdb helper code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-31
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60019|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60018|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60017|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60016|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
--- Comment #4 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk ---
Add using
seed=iand(seed*int(1103515245,selected_int_kind(18))+12345,z'7fff')
also works as expected. Converting the code to C shows the same behaviour as
the Fortran if seed is a static int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60015|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60014|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
--- Comment #3 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk ---
That is a very interesting point. If I change the constants in the random
number generator to
seed=iand(seed*110+123,z'7fff')
then the answer with '-O3' is
0 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60008|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 99% sure this is undefined Fortran code and you either need to use -fwrapv
or the new Fortran 202X unsigned type to get this to be defined.
That is integer types are signed and signed integer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60011|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
Bug ID: 118259
Summary: -O3 optimisation bug fixed with -fno-inline
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118258
Bug ID: 118258
Summary: dead code causes missed optimization at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60010|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60010&action=edit
cvise-more.ii
Further cvise progress (nearly done)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118184
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118257
Bug ID: 118257
Summary: [SH] libgcc: Missing exceptions and rounding mode for
soft-fp
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.5.0, 12.4.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60009&action=edit
Hackish solution for Cray pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118215
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So I think
int gsum;
int
foo (signed char *p1, signed char *p2)
{
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 32; i++)
sum += __builtin_abs (p1[i] - p2[i]);
gsum = sum;
}
is handled correctly(?) (btw, I se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118255
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845
--- Comment #8 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou ---
I implemented Andrew's suggested solution and sent it to the lists
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672368.html).
63 matches
Mail list logo
