https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60688&action=edit
Fix which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> So the issue is empty_or_with_defined_p is true but the middle_bb has a phi
> in it.
> And that is the fix rather previous patch here.
Note before r12-5300 th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119078
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
And a dummy argument should not be global, either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the issue is empty_or_with_defined_p is true but the middle_bb has a phi in
it.
And that is the fix rather previous patch here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't reproduce it with r15-7902-ge8c2f3a427a96a
I tried
`-O2 -g0`
`-O2 -fPIE`
`-O2 -fstack-protector-all`
`-O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector-all`
`-O2 -m32`
`-O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector-all -m32`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
Bug ID: 119171
Summary: [15 Regression] error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible
constraints or there are not enough registers
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44b1d52e2f4db57849ca54b63c52a687294b1793
commit r15-7911-g44b1d52e2f4db57849ca54b63c52a687294b1793
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119166
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: SIGSEGV in |[15 regression] ICE:
|get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119078
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> No comments from me; but I suspect others will but they are more likely
> address it via WG14 rather than here.
Thanks! I've already requested an N number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Suspended until this is approved by the C committee for the names.
>
> Any comments on the feature itself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Suspended until this is approved by the C committee for the names.
Any comments on the feature itself? It would be interesting to present a paper
that has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
Bug ID: 119170
Summary: Add operators _Widthof, _Minof, _Maxof
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119169
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> I suspect your GCC is too old and lacks r15-7682-g206cb6c10589be. Please
> always include the version in reports.
Hmmm, that's good news. Thanks! And sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119169
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What gcc are you using?
With current trunk I get
~/src/gcc/obj26/gcc/xgcc -B ~/src/gcc/obj26/gcc/ -fanalyzer pr119169.c -isystem
include/ -S
pr119169.c: In function ‘main’:
pr119169.c:11:3: warning: use of p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119169
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119169
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #0)
> The most basic code that should trigger a -Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument
> diagnostic with [[gnu::nonnull]], doesn't.
Here I obviously meant [[gnu::n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119169
Bug ID: 119169
Summary: [[gnu::nonnull_if_nonzero]] False negative of
-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument with nonzero integer
constant expression
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119136
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119074
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119049
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90d9cdfa82d9a8d63e35d928e335719a495c79e3
commit r15-7909-g90d9cdfa82d9a8d63e35d928e335719a495c79e3
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...I can reproduce it with the following test case and v13:
#include
extern void __builtin_avr_delay_cycles (uint32_t);
#include
int main(void)
{
_delay_ms(100);
}
So the likely cause is that A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks noisy benchmark to me ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168
Bug ID: 119168
Summary: [15 Regression] 5% 477.dealII slowdown since
r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119167
Bug ID: 119167
Summary: gimple testcase with startwith does not always get the
same CFG as what was provided with
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60685|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into this further, this can only show up with loops and loops where
there is only one variable around it (and no load/stores either).
This is why:
```
__BB(5):
if (h_6 != 0)
goto __BB7;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Clayton ---
Thanks everyone, looking forward to putting this to use!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119114
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #17)
> > No you got it wrong.
> > _121 will either be -1 or 0. _11 should be -1 or 0 too.
> > So the question is what was the VEC_EXTRACT doing the right thing? Is it
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Still 2 issues:
* Your are configuring the compiler in a way not supported by GCC (see my note
above).
* Pre-processed files are still missing. You can get the i files with
-save-temps -g3.
With -g3, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60682|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
--- Comment #5 from Uwe Lohmann ---
The code compilation with the option -mint8 is different.
Compilation without -mint8
(avr-gcc -Os -fwhole-program -mrelax -Wall -Wextra --save-temps -mmcu=avr25
-DF_CPU=100 main.c -o main.elf)
cutout of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
--- Comment #4 from Uwe Lohmann ---
Created attachment 60684
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60684&action=edit
main.elf-main.s_with_-mint8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
--- Comment #3 from Uwe Lohmann ---
Created attachment 60683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60683&action=edit
main.elf-main.s_without_-mint8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67301
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56682
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114795
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b360d4aafc1356386313c7392f7444b3fc356681
commit r15-7906-gb360d4aafc1356386313c7392f7444b3fc356681
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114630
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b360d4aafc1356386313c7392f7444b3fc356681
commit r15-7906-gb360d4aafc1356386313c7392f7444b3fc356681
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #6 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119151
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, even if we had the size information on btree_remove, we could just
increase the separator during walk to base + size - 1 from base - 1. But until
it reaches the leaf node, it doesn't know what the firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118597
--- Comment #7 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
These regressions in vect-fncall-mask.c are also present in gcc-14.
However they seem to be passing in trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118597
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119151
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 60682
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60682&action=edit
gcc15-pr119151.patch
I agree with your analysis and as I tried to write in the comment, I think it
can't be up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in |[15 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Reduced test case:
MODULE lmdif_module
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE fdjac2 (fcn, m, n, x, fvec, fjac, ldfjac, iflag, &
epsfcn, wa)
END SUBROUTINE fdjac2
SUBROUTINE lmdif (fcn, m, n,
52 matches
Mail list logo
