https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118642
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60272&action=edit
Proposed patch to correct offset and return type to/from lseek
FWIIW I wonder if the bug might be related to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115082
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118650 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118248
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
Not able to reproduce this in an s390x QEMU VM running Debian.
Version: 20250117 / r15-6997
Configure flags: --enable-languages=d --enable-libphobos
--with-libphobos-druntime-only --enable-multiarch --disabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60271&action=edit
boost.cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
Bug ID: 118650
Summary: `(even + unknown) & 1` is not optimized to just
`unknown & 1` at gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118649
Bug ID: 118649
Summary: `(b * CST) & 1` for CST is odd is not optimized to
`b&1` on the gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #6 from Alfredo Correa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Please do attach the testcase that does not use boost instead of just
> linking godbolt too.
The first link, at the top of the OP, doesn't use external code:
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #5 from Alfredo Correa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Alfredo Correa from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > The tree level misdetection is recorded as PR 99504.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #2 from Alfredo Correa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The tree level misdetection is recorded as PR 99504.
ok, I am not an expert, but I have the impression that what I reported is
library problem, not a compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a way to get a testcase without using boost too? Like inling the
iterator into the sources?
Please do attach the testcase that does not use boost instead of just linking
godbolt too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alfredo Correa from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > The tree level misdetection is recorded as PR 99504.
>
> ok, I am not an expert, but I have the impression that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118648
Bug ID: 118648
Summary: (sign_extend:di (ashiftrt:si reg CST)) is not turning
into (sign_extract:di (subreg (reg) CST' CST')
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118647
Bug ID: 118647
Summary: Missed optimization to do memcpy/memmove for
contiguous iterator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (insn 6 3 12 2 (set (reg:DI 105 [ dataD.4432 ])
> (sign_extend:DI (reg/v:SI 102 [ dataD.4432 ])))
> "/app/example.cpp":3:12 105 {*extendsidi2_aarch64}
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-01-24 00:00:00 |2025-01-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60258|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118010
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0acb7b2b26d4f821968043eafd286a1a3a37ca3
commit r15-7205-gd0acb7b2b26d4f821968043eafd286a1a3a37ca3
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116568
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #9 from mauro russo ---
done here:
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/memory-leak-due-to-non-destructed-object/10834177
as I am unable to add in the "See Also" section.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] ICE: in |[14 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(insn 6 3 12 2 (set (reg:DI 105 [ dataD.4432 ])
(sign_extend:DI (reg/v:SI 102 [ dataD.4432 ]))) "/app/example.cpp":3:12
105 {*extendsidi2_aarch64}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 102 [ dataD.4432
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116568
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80bd9eb48190f3554c4de74ccb3d0976831160b1
commit r15-7204-g80bd9eb48190f3554c4de74ccb3d0976831160b1
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116568
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c01f40985eafccc3dd058441325b58009defd09
commit r15-7203-g4c01f40985eafccc3dd058441325b58009defd09
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8990070b4297b913025d564293f97c0440622976
commit r15-7202-g8990070b4297b913025d564293f97c0440622976
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115076
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about this some more, probably a new tree node type like
OMP_VARIANT_CALL needs to be introduced, that captures the variants in scope at
the call site and the arguments. The problem with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #11 from Li Pan ---
TARGET_CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE can help to resolve this issue, let me have a
try for regression test.
But looks we don't need to emit_volatile_frm anymore here, but it is another
refactor later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this issue ought to be tackled in conjunction with PR115076, the fix
for which will probably take variant resolution out of gimplify_call_expr()
entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118589
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118589
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7be54613e8a1b1080f0480cf061baa73317a26d3
commit r15-7200-g7be54613e8a1b1080f0480cf061baa73317a26d3
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118589
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60268
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60268&action=edit
Proposed fix which detects an opaque type and improves error recovery and error
accuracy
Proposed fix detects a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #10 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #8)
> A fix for PR/118464 is posted to list [1] which also cures this issue.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/674498.html
Thanks Vineet, it se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #9 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #7)
> The problem seems to be in the modelling of the FRM register.
> CALL_USED_REGISTERS says that the register is call-clobbered/caller-save,
> which means:
>
> (a) i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #6 from mauro russo ---
Yes, 'a' and 'c' destroyed in a wrongly swapped order.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #8 from mauro russo ---
I see you added the reference to the similar bug I reported to Clang
[https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/124306] but I would say that there
is similar to the previously fixed bug PR 33799 for gcc that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b69eb2c594f8595718d876dc9811e3820eb68da1
commit r14-11246-gb69eb2c594f8595718d876dc9811e3820eb68da1
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #7 from mauro russo ---
I tried to be clear since the words:
<... the code destroys object a before returned object constructed in #1 ...>
where having written "object a" instead of "object 'a'" might likely appear
less clear.
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> So what's the state here?
There is a cost model issue with the `char` case. I am not sure if this shows
up in any code or not; it was more I found it while imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60267&action=edit
Self contained testcase
Testcase.
The argument passed to the constructor of A is the order of which is expecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118641
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC changed bahvior in GCC 12 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And we want this instead:
struct QQQ q = {.data={._M_len=0, ._M_str=0}};
<>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||118103
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I think the problem is that we evaluate
struct QQQ q;
<>>
(const char *) "" ) >;
into
struct QQQ q;
<;
and then the useless expr_stmt is dropped on the floor. So q isn't
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
I posted a potential fix for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/674498.html
Confirmed that it also fixes PR/118103.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118589
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58857
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |target
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|RISC-V: N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118594
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> And yes both things I think are GCC 16 material at this point. I think we
> should disallow subreg of mem completely and should do the adjust_address
> change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
Reproducer f90 test:
-Ofast -march=rv646cv_zcl256b_zba_zbb_zbs_zicond -ftree-vectorize
-mrvv-vector-bits=zvl
module a
contains
subroutine b(f)
real d(4)
integer e(4)
integer f(4)
real hmax(4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
```
constexpr unsigned
length ()
{
bool __trans_tmp_1 = __builtin_is_constant_evaluated();
if (__trans_tmp_1)
return 42;
return 1;
}
struct basic_string_view {
constexpr basic_string_view(const c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] Crash at|[15 Regression] Crash at
Hi there,
I’m Manoel Da Silva, Partner at MP Restoration. I wanted to reach out
because we specialize in hardscaping services that could be a great fit for
your properties in Lee, Collier, and Charlotte counties.
We install brick pavers for driveways and pool decks, and we take care of
everything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81978
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81978
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4df61dc6ed90e6614db213119858adde939fc97
commit r14-11245-gd4df61dc6ed90e6614db213119858adde939fc97
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
Bug ID: 118646
Summary: RISC-V: Needed FSRM getting eliminated - SPEC2017
527.cam4 failures
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115271
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this related to PR115076, the issue about attaching "declare variant" info
to the declaration that is in local scope instead of globally?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118497
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4dae80357ccf2e035d8e9ec0a3bb319344c5b41
commit r15-7185-gc4dae80357ccf2e035d8e9ec0a3bb319344c5b41
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116330
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note it seems like you need to have the DEBUG insn/statement in the right
location to cause this to fail. It is not just about having them either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #11 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 1/24/25 09:26, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Do we need a backport of this?
>
I'll leave that decision up to you. It is a fairly concise
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.gerhold at web dot de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118645
Bug ID: 118645
Summary: [UBSAN] UBSAN Fails on C-Style Arrays with constexpr
User-Defined Destructors in GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118644
--- Comment #1 from Yunbo Ni ---
Bisected to
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/3f05d70389f523cf53f9b8fdf56570e8a6ecdb8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117153
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117153
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:988c0b796721d6e8be6a54abb48b695dae972dcf
commit r13-9345-g988c0b796721d6e8be6a54abb48b695dae972dcf
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118410
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Piotr has also pointed out additional cases in this space. For example
x & -72057594037927681
x | -9223372036854773761
x ^ -1152921504606846721
There's also vector opportunities in this space
(https://gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117153
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:504fbafd45a526f4851e7655d78d678d0c9eecbe
commit r14-11244-g504fbafd45a526f4851e7655d78d678d0c9eecbe
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Redirecting the call to operator delete[](void*) to
__builtin_unreachable(), which seems the correct thing to do, leads to
one more SLP vectorization in the functin experiencing the slow-down,
comparing -fop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118644
Yunbo Ni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
--- Comment #2 from Yunbo Ni ---
Bisected to
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/3f05d70389f523cf53f9b8fdf56570e8a6ecdb8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|Crash at -O3 du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
--- Comment #1 from Yunbo Ni ---
*** Bug 118644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117153
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10850f92b2a618ef1b1ad399530943ef4847823d
commit r15-7184-g10850f92b2a618ef1b1ad399530943ef4847823d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118644
Bug ID: 118644
Summary: Crash at -O3 during RTL pass: expand
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Bug ID: 118643
Summary: Crash at -O3 during RTL pass: expand
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102018
--- Comment #5 from Torbjorn SVENSSON ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4)
> Rather than a cost issue, it's probably because you use +fp.dp (which
> -mcpu=cortex-m7 does too), which enables the double-precision FPU. cortex-m4
> does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116448
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Torbjorn Svensson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1836a65efc4c76284a6b1e18a9542acb0b9e0517
commit r14-11243-g1836a65efc4c76284a6b1e18a9542acb0b9e0517
Author: Torbjörn S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116448
Torbjorn SVENSSON changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
