https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110182
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
r14-2150-gfe48f2651334bc added checking for this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tymi at tymi dot org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119072
--- Comment #2 from Tymi ---
Ah okay. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117214
--- Comment #4 from XU Kailiang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Patch posted to the list (thanks!):
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/674531.html
This patch seems not well formatted. I re-sent a re-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119072
Bug ID: 119072
Summary: GCC rejects type declaration inside decltype specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think we should just close this. Realistically I don't see us ever
implementing this feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, I think H8/SX support was bits from Alexandre. Feel free to add the
appropriate docs. Doc fixes are always acceptable during stage4.
I removed -mn a while back. If I left a -mn bit the in the docs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60622|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101955
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109189
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fc17730dcef182bba3c9d4e32fc00302ef421fe
commit r15-7768-g2fc17730dcef182bba3c9d4e32fc00302ef421fe
Author: Jan Dubiec
Date: Fri Feb 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109189
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103482
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104387
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96031
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95650
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106245
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60621
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60621&action=edit
gimple testcase
This works at -O0 but fails at -O2+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|[13/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60621|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the place where this match pattern happens is:
_16 = a.0_1 == -2;
# RANGE [irange] int [0, 1] MASK 0x1 VALUE 0x0
_17 = (intD.6) _16;
# RANGE [irange] int [-1, 0]
_12 = -_17;
# RANGE [irange] i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`-O2 -fno-thread-jumps` also produces the incorrect result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78085
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119071
Bug ID: 119071
Summary: Miscompile at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The particular error situation is unique because it is just before we try to
match the variable name. This might be sufficient in this case:
$ ./a.out
At line 18 of file pr118793.f90
Fortran runtime error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase that does not use builtins:
file0.cc:
```
typedef char __v32qi __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (32)));
struct ff
{
__v32qi t;
};
__v32qi g(struct ff a) {
return a.t;
}
```
file1.cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119058
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Plus why not just use casts?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #9 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> Thanks. First, try strip out various bits from the packaging like
> STAGE1_*FLAGS (which is only really safe if you're 100% sure the stage1
> compiler is robust, and I wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandberg.sven at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119058
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a proposed C paper for this?
Do you have edits that could be applied to the C23 standard to support this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119060
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think R4 is the only version that is public so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69761
--- Comment #2 from Loren Rittle ---
Studying gcc/configure.ac , the workaround for at least gcc-15 is to add:
--with-plugin-ld=ld
I am trying another bootstrap with this patch:
$ git diff gcc/configure.ac
diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116440
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|87403 |104077
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b9885ac4df2e83cec2080d5a7013b71345a7a7b
commit r14-11362-g3b9885ac4df2e83cec2080d5a7013b71345a7a7b
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981
--- Comment #49 from Erich Löw ---
Yep, understood: using priorities below 101 in user code is forbidden.
I was just eager to see if using reserved priority 99 in user code together
with production compiler would trigger the duplicating of symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114222
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
But I would say that is the core problem.
ISTM newlib should provide an actual implementation of ffs rather than assuming
that GCC will provide one suitable for use in all circumstances. The current
code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981
--- Comment #48 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Erich Löw from comment #45)
> Created attachment 60618 [details]
> The source code
[[gnu::init_priority(99)]]
Coord A::c0(4u, 5u);
This uses a priority below 101, which is reserved for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
--- Comment #11 from Chameleon ---
It misbehaves.
I don't want to send you my complete library.
I will try to make a minimized failing test case in next days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981
--- Comment #47 from Erich Löw ---
Created attachment 60620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60620&action=edit
The generated assembler file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 119070, which changed state.
Bug 119070 Summary: gcc15 incorrectly reporting negative array-bounds errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981
--- Comment #46 from Erich Löw ---
Created attachment 60619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60619&action=edit
The make file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981
--- Comment #45 from Erich Löw ---
Created attachment 60618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60618&action=edit
The source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112803
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106612
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8ee522c5923ba17851e4b71316a2dff19d6368f
commit r15-7766-ga8ee522c5923ba17851e4b71316a2dff19d6368f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106612
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118811
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a8d05b61a9568d60ee922f899408555470eeff1
commit r14-11367-g3a8d05b61a9568d60ee922f899408555470eeff1
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb9a2af992813f874c942472fb35506b6180ffbf
commit r14-11360-gfb9a2af992813f874c942472fb35506b6180ffbf
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105609
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3866ca796d5281d33f25b4165badacf8f198c6d1
commit r15-7765-g3866ca796d5281d33f25b4165badacf8f198c6d1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112803
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9cfcd0d9e3780c71442057f636f62a7142056cb
commit r15-7764-ga9cfcd0d9e3780c71442057f636f62a7142056cb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117436
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117579
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116961
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7bc17ebc9ef89700672ed7125da719f3558f3b7
commit r15-7763-gf7bc17ebc9ef89700672ed7125da719f3558f3b7
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
--- Comment #4 from Taylor Hutt ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I don't see anything wrong with the warning since it is undefined in C to
> what this testcase is trying to do.
>
> Do you have a full source rather than a reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
--- Comment #1 from Taylor Hutt ---
Created attachment 60616
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60616&action=edit
C file that demonstrates errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am going to reduce this.
I suspect there is a simplier testcase too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110822
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Planning to backport to 14 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Obviously started with r14-2150-gfe48f2651334bc .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|ICE whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-28
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
--- Comment #2 from Taylor Hutt ---
Created attachment 60617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60617&action=edit
Shell script to compile C file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119070
Bug ID: 119070
Summary: gcc15 incorrectly reporting negative array-bounds
errors
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114913
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96572464234a88949ebfc07207ae2ae04c63e53b
commit r15-7762-g96572464234a88949ebfc07207ae2ae04c63e53b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #10 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119067
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Reduced to..
SkBlitRow_opts_hsw.ii:
```
typedef char __v32qi __attribute__((__vector_size__(32)));
typedef long __m256i __attribute__((__vector_size__(32)));
__m256i _mm256_shuffle_epi8___X, _mm256_shuffle_epi8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-contracts
--- Comment #1 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110822
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96572464234a88949ebfc07207ae2ae04c63e53b
commit r15-7762-g96572464234a88949ebfc07207ae2ae04c63e53b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114913
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110822
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jorg.brown at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118986
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115871
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=118986
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22018a4a8caa806a8f673eb0713de16d64d25063
commit r15-7761-g22018a4a8caa806a8f673eb0713de16d64d25063
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119066
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think users should be calling __cxa_atexit themselves. But since the
data argument is typically the address of a global variable with static storage
duration, it would be OK to warn if it's passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119066
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I was going to mention at_exit but that does not have a data arguments.
But __cxa_atexit does (and __aeabi_atexit too).
Warning about those might be just as useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118318
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119054
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119030
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Thank you for testing trunk and providing a small testcase too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119069
Bug ID: 119069
Summary: 519.lbm_r runs 60% slower with -Ofast -flto
-march=znver5 on an AMD Zen5 machine than when
compiled with GCC 14 (or with -march=znver4)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119030
--- Comment #8 from Frank Mehnert ---
I can confirm the fix, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bffcd469e68d68ba9c724f515651deff8494b82
commit r15-7760-g0bffcd469e68d68ba9c724f515651deff8494b82
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115871
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
According to the ABI, the _ZGVeM32v_foo clone should have
__attribute__((omp declare simd (simdlen(32) inbranch)))
vector(8) double[4] foo.simdclone.3 (vector(8) double simd.75, vector(8) double
simd.76, vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118160
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119062
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's a small library part to this (adding [[deprecated]] to the enumerator).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118158
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117921
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119068
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar ---
BTW, now that I report this, I remember myself always having doubts if
-Wwrite-strings makes the string literals writable, or what. The name was
misleading, so maybe if we move it into an -f flag, we co
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo