https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 118691, which changed state.
Bug 118691 Summary: [15 Regression] gcc_r in SPECCPU 2017 miscompare on train
dataset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118691
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b8a8c9fd68c5dabaec5ddbc25efeade44f37a14
commit r15-7602-g6b8a8c9fd68c5dabaec5ddbc25efeade44f37a14
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118691
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
Still being worked on, I'll send v3 of the patch today or tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Chang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> There is no ignoring volatile here since the exact memory locations are
> written.
>
> Rather you have a memory location which needs to be written using an exact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
Tomas Chang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #20 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> W/o more usage of callee-saved registers, callee needs to restore them
> before exit which is not needed if more caller-saved register are used.
W/ https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-Februa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tomas Chang from comment #2)
>
> My question is that the same code runs successfully if it is compiled with
> GCC 12 using -O3 optimization.
Because it just happened to work ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118540
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17b95cfc310c0b3ef191cd47ceb3b4ee1205e8bf
commit r15-7600-g17b95cfc310c0b3ef191cd47ceb3b4ee1205e8bf
Author: Pan Li
Date: Sat Feb 15 14:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
str w1, [x2]
str wzr, [x2], -4
.L6:
ldr w1, [x2]
is correct as the gimple code is:
MEM[(volatile unsigned int *)1099193386136B] ={v} 1;
MEM[(volatile unsigned int *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118901
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Should we declare this a duplicate or do you want to keep them separate Andrew?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #19 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #17)
> >
> > For reproduce, not only on ADL, the fix patch showed regression on all
> > Cascade Lake/Ice Lake/Sapphire Rapids w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
I'm not sure what to do next. I can write up instructions for reproducing it
manually w/ a full Firefox build, but that doesn't help much.
I know I need to identify some training input but FF is itself huge an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118916
Bug ID: 118916
Summary: AARCH64: rtl-cse2 Option in O3 Level Optimization
Ignores "volatile", Causing 'Invalid Instruction
Syndrome'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> I'm not sure what to do next. I can write up instructions for reproducing it
> manually w/ a full Firefox build, but that doesn't help much.
>
> I know I need to iden
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
tx.gcda: 0100: 12:FUNCTION ident=1901877736, lineno_checksum=0xb50ca648,
cfg_checksum=0x0166fe38
tx.gcda:01a1: 104:COUNTERS arcs 13 counts
tx.gcda:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Ah, nicer output:
```
(gdb) p orig_node->debug()
reset_ctx/108 (reset_ctx)
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: semantic_interposition prevailing_def_ironly
Aux: @0x58ac1440
References:
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
```
(gdb) bt
#0 profile_count::operator+= (this=0x76e7e888, other=...) at
/usr/src/debug/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./gcc-15.0./gcc/profile-count.h:932
#1 profile_count::operator+= (this=0x76e7e888, oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|ICE when building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am kinda of shock that smtgcc didn't find this earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118805
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3768bedf7b5fcdd63a18871ecfce665ae1b8d87e
commit r15-7597-g3768bedf7b5fcdd63a18871ecfce665ae1b8d87e
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80042
--- Comment #8 from Peter Damianov ---
Patch sent:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20250218005001.2266781-1-peter0...@disroot.org/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> ```
> _16 = (unsigned int) a.0_1;
> if (_16 <= 4294967261)
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[local count: 536870912]:
> _19 = _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miscompile at -O2 |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915
Bug ID: 118915
Summary: Miscompile at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118911
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We are expecting:
g1:
mov x2, x0
mov x3, 0
and x4, x2, 9223372036854775807
mov w0, w1
and x2, x2, 1
b f1
But currently getting:
g1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118911
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60519
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60519&action=edit
Simplified testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116901
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr110625_2.c scan-tree-dump vect "reduction latency =
8"
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr110625_4.c scan-tree-dump-not vect "LOOP VECTORIZED"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> Konstantinos, any news? Thanks.
(Ah, sorry, I see you only assigned yourself not that long ago -- I was just
going off the age of the other activity.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115032
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115032
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118914
Bug ID: 118914
Summary: [15 Regression] rev16_2.c fails since r15-268
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118913
Bug ID: 118913
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/pr110625_{2,4}.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs-bisection, testsuite-fail
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118912
Bug ID: 118912
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/pr108840.c fails
since r15-268
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118911
Bug ID: 118911
Summary: [15 Regression] bitfield-bitint-abi-align{8,16}.c
fails on aarch64-linux-gnu since r15-268
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-01-10 00:00:00 |2025-2-17
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115271
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Note the commit of comment 4 only fixes the INTERFACE issue of comment 2.
The actual saving into/reading from .mod files has still to be implemented
(comment 0, comment 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #35 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Hello Matthias,
As planned, we had another look at Nicolas' changes, and sent some feedback on
January 3rd, see the messages on gcc-patches@
(https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/878qrrgbbz@adacore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115271
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8268c8256dd430174e89142be9ee77b036d6310d
commit r15-7595-g8268c8256dd430174e89142be9ee77b036d6310d
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116078
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #8)
> Hmm, reverting the commit in question on the current trunk to see if it
> still causes a slowdown doesn't work.
I would have been very surprised if that patch had c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117991
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
ping on this one if I may?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Konstantinos, any news? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
--- Comment #9 from Peter Damianov ---
build this testcase with:
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ simplecpp.cpp clangimport.cpp -flto -Os
and observe an ICE
build with:
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ simplecpp.cpp clangimport.cpp -flto -Os
-fno-declone-ctor-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Keywords|needs-reduct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
--- Comment #8 from Peter Damianov ---
Created attachment 60518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60518&action=edit
reduced testcase reproducing the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107659
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
One additional point. Using -fdump-fortran-original on
the original test case, one finds
symtree: 'Bar' || symbol: 'bar'
type spec : (UNKNOWN 0 C_INTEROP)
attributes: (DERIVED P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118909
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.openmp.org/spec-html/5.0/openmpsu55.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118909
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
User error. Either you need to use larger stack if you want to do something
like this, or use allocate clause and specify an allocator. The normal way of
privatization is on the stack.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88052
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #16 from anl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116400
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is that with --enable-maintainer-mode?
Yes (they would not be written out otherwise).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
Bug 58787 depends on bug 58786, which changed state.
Bug 58786 Summary: module function with passed character array of explicit
length causes an ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58786
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84868
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.mauerberger at gmail
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58786
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.4.1, 13.3.1, 14.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09684c53bca7dad47d36875b359e83551f9015fd
commit r15-7593-g09684c53bca7dad47d36875b359e83551f9015fd
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118903
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dop you have a full example because the code snipit here definitely is
rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118903
--- Comment #2 from Hana Dusíková ---
https://compiler-explorer.com/z/58reoonEW
(trunk GCC 2ef2b206c4617abae60002280455f7175aaa6064)
```c++
#include
struct awaitable {
constexpr bool await_ready() {
return true;
}
void aw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114997
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86959
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug 87332 depends on bug 118907, which changed state.
Bug 118907 Summary: ICF optimises bit selection differently based on
declaration order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118907
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99800
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118326
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> The OP wants a warning from int to time_t, not from time_t to int.
>
> Thus not a dup.
The warning should be both ways, otherwise it is not very useful ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102047
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107623
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107399
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116078
--- Comment #8 from Filip Kastl ---
Hmm, reverting the commit in question on the current trunk to see if it still
causes a slowdown doesn't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116568
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115773
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118910
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-17
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 102455, which changed state.
Bug 102455 Summary: ICE in verify_ctor_sanity with vector types in constexpr
and variable template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117175
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118905
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1787119229abca0c78f9c902eeb7c88efed37ce0
commit r15-7592-g1787119229abca0c78f9c902eeb7c88efed37ce0
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117270
--- Comment #6 from Filip Kastl ---
Are you sure this is fixed? On our machine the slowdown didn't go away. See
the graph https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=585.507.0.
Maybe the weird codegen wasn't the cause of the slow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118910
Bug ID: 118910
Summary: Promote an expression equivalence to a name
equivalence in DOM
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96364
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
