https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
> > Not sure how to save the preprocessed files in this case:
>
> There aren't any directly ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120187
Bug ID: 120187
Summary: Inclusion of ciso646 incorrectly points to using
version in C++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
This patch enables more inlining, so I guess it is previously latent problem
triggered by inliner...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
Bug ID: 120186
Summary: [pa] internal compiler error: in fail, at
selftest.cc:47 during bootstrap with LRA enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
In fact it's the gid assignment:
**scanning insn=17
mem: (const_int 2654208 [0x288000])
after canon_rtx address: (const_int 2654208 [0x288000])
gid=1 offset=0
processing const base store gid=1[0..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120185
Bug ID: 120185
Summary: [16 Regression] ncc-3.11 ICE since
r16-479-gabab79397ef97a in
type_has_converting_constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
Left is what I wanted to investigate basically, performance of library
architectures. Odd is that shared library code runs independent from the
library file, and static as well as shared version has about factor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Bug ID: 120184
Summary: --gc-section can't discard unused section due to
fpatchable-function-entry ?
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a2c62212bd912f5c8130e992ce282b542599f98
commit r16-487-g1a2c62212bd912f5c8130e992ce282b542599f98
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117635
pietro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pietro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #5 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Created attachment 61376
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61376&action=edit
gimple before store-merging
Simplified gimple before the store-merging pass. If you want it to be optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97786
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Erm,tdc *is* 3.0, but setbc is 3.1, I can never ever get this right it seems!
But
setb is 3.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97786
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #7)
> Hi Segher,
>
> Thanks for the pointers!
> We can optimize the code further and remove the branch completely.
>
> For P10:
>
> xststdcdp 0,1,48
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #4 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
By comparing S2 = 256 and S2 = 255, the brokenness and the major difference is
first outputted by the store-merging pass.
[local count: 39764240]:
MEM[(struct S *)2654208B].next = 256B;
MEM[(ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113939
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #7)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
> > I suggest we switch m68k to LRA, so we can close this bug report. Plus file
> > bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120183
Bug ID: 120183
Summary: Incomplete type error in module import
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ce73ad4370c143a7d1e6a13b1d353db5884213f
commit r16-480-g6ce73ad4370c143a7d1e6a13b1d353db5884213f
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Assignee|unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #9 from camm at debian dot org ---
Let me double check that everything is properly linked. Thanks for suggesting
binutils.
If I don't see any obvious linker failure I'll try to isolate a small
reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #3 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
MEM [(void *)2654208B] = 256;
MEM[(char *)2654209B] = 0;
MEM[(char *)2654210B] = 0;
MEM[(char *)2654211B] = 0;
MEM[(char *)2654212B] = 0;
MEM[(char *)2654213B] = 0;
MEM[(char *)2654214B]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #29 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abab79397ef97acf7c689c43e27d58d8d7d5c599
commit r16-479-gabab79397ef97acf7c689c43e27d58d8d7d5c599
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119692
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(I've not yet been able to work on this.)
I've observed (but not any further analyzed) that, if running for GCN
'-march=gfx90a' with 'HSA_XNACK=1', the applicable execution test cases,
instead of running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This also could be a binutils issue ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
--- Comment #13 from Simon Marchi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> I think it would be better to silence it. Do you know how to do that?
Since this is execute using gdb.execute in Python, you can probably pass
to_string=True
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> I think it would be better to silence it. Do you know how to do that?
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15814#c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120051
--- Comment #8 from Christoph Reiter ---
Crasher with the latest patch:
// gcc -O1 -gcodeview -c test.c
void a(float *);
enum { b } c(long d) {
float e[d];
a(e);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> This also could be a binutils issue ...
OK, good to know.
I am happy to help tracking this down if Camm provides a simple reproducer to
me which tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it would be better to silence it. Do you know how to do that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> >The gcc used is the standard 14.2.0 currently in Debian unstable.
>
> That still didn't answer the question because there are a few different
> alp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The gcc used is the standard 14.2.0 currently in Debian unstable.
That still didn't answer the question because there are a few different alpha
cpus. ones with byte loads and ones without. Plus Debian turn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to camm from comment #2)
> The gcc used is the standard 14.2.0 currently in Debian unstable. The gcc
> command line flags are displayed in the qemu file. Adding -fno-jump-tables
> res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
-c -g -Werror=implicit-function-declaration
-ffile-prefix-map=/mnt/sda4/debian/gclmc/gcl=. -Wformat -Werror=format-security
-fsigned-char -pipe -fcommon -fno-builtin-malloc -fno-builtin-free -fno-PIE
-fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
--- Comment #2 from camm at debian dot org ---
The gcc used is the standard 14.2.0 currently in Debian unstable. The gcc
command line flags are displayed in the qemu file. Adding -fno-jump-tables
results in a successful compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120168
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120168
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8dac49707e71844b4d1c21348d92addb19a0969
commit r16-477-gd8dac49707e71844b4d1c21348d92addb19a0969
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107308
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61374&action=edit
Verifier in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #2 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Unsurprisingly the following also fails, but if you change always_inline to
noipa it works
__attribute__((always_inline)) inline char * x() {
return (char *)0x288000ull;
}
int main (void) {
int s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 61373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61373&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119954
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
Bug ID: 120182
Summary: Incorrect code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120156
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Brrr due to aggressive reduction t.ii became kind of invalid/incomplete which
means the reduced test case errors out early for release branches 12 and 13.
However, running the original tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120160
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120156
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Created attachment 61371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61371&action=edit
reduced test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120165
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 61372
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61372&action=edit
Preprocessed source for ICE reported in PR-120165
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120168
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-May/683008.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118260
Simon Marchi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120156
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Sorry for taking so long. I accidentally switched to a checking=release build.
With checking=yes it is reproducible and I get a proper ICE. Now, even
earlier tests fail. With the appended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120180
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
Bug ID: 120181
Summary: Bug in alpha jump tables
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117818
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We still support powerpc64-* just fine. And powerpc-linux (the 32-bit target)
is
tested just fine as well, and the community does support it. No one cares
_too_
much about it anymore, but why let it d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120174
--- Comment #2 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Actually this is most likely an original bug because unlike other bugs that
started with the same commit, this one segfaults without printing any
stacktrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120169
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
The csa pass ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120172
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There might be a dup of this ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120177
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes `: "=fr" (result)` is not valid.
It just happens to work because now r is selected as f is always invalid for
the output register constraint.
```
Output operands must specifically indicate which regist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119954
--- Comment #3 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Bisection found r9-3807-g5d9a0e3b99e31a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120169
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120169
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Workaround: -fno-combine-stack-adjustments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120180
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 61369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61369&action=edit
C/C++ test case, compile with '-fopenmp'
It is a bit UNCLEAR to me whether the attached TESTCASE is VALID OR N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119741
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120180
Bug ID: 120180
Summary: [OpenMP] C/C
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
Bug ID: 120179
Summary: Failure with do concurrent and semicolon
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120086
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin ---
Your patch works for me:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-May/846366.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120178
Bug ID: 120178
Summary: ICE in fold_build2_loc during profile_estimate when
casting free to volatile size_t and adding to malloc
pointer in version 13.3
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120174
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120177
Bug ID: 120177
Summary: ICE in lra_constraints, "maximum number of generated
reload insns" with inline assembly using x87
instructions (finitq, fldq, fst) — 13.3
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Created attachment 61367
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61367&action=edit
clone-4_b.s
This is the testcase I've been using:
$ cat ~/t/modules/clone-4_a.C
// PR c++/120125
// { dg-ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120176
Bug ID: 120176
Summary: Missed reduction chain vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120169
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Inconsistent CFI state!
SHOULD have:
.cfi_def_cfa 15, 16
.cfi_offset 2, -16
.cfi_offset 10, -12
.cfi_offset 11, -8
.cfi_offset 24, -4
DO have:
.cfi_def_cfa 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108900
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cbe033a8a88fe6437cc5d343ae0ddf8dd3455c8
commit r14-11749-g8cbe033a8a88fe6437cc5d343ae0ddf8dd3455c8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9d390ab17d9395ce20e899ef0180052ed79d332
commit r14-11751-ga9d390ab17d9395ce20e899ef0180052ed79d332
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120086
--- Comment #15 from Jørgen Kvalsvik ---
I don't know why it's only defined for rtems, but I would imagine it's either
an oversight, or that it's the only target with libatomic support without
hardware atomics. Is there a libatomic for hppa, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120043
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93586e5d51188bf71f4f8fae4ee94ff631740f24
commit r16-472-g93586e5d51188bf71f4f8fae4ee94ff631740f24
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118388
--- Comment #4 from Simon Martin ---
We ended up doing a different fix for #118319 and the case I mentionned in the
initial comment does not ICE, but the underlying problem still exists.
I ran the c++ testsuite with the use of -fpermissive for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.1.0
Summary|[15/16 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e8bd720b1a618a39e2a41eec05e935c32d295f3
commit r16-473-g1e8bd720b1a618a39e2a41eec05e935c32d295f3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112351
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:351ac78e48fa897080cf8bbb71618df9c428ad30
commit r13-9643-g351ac78e48fa897080cf8bbb71618df9c428ad30
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
Bug ID: 120175
Summary: Performance: compiling a program with using a library
slows other code.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The WIP patch looks reasonable to me.
On which testcase you see something weird? On the #c1 I don't see anything
wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120174
Bug ID: 120174
Summary: ICE (Segfault) in GCC when passing array of class to
generic lambda taking decltype of lambda with
-std=c++20
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120173
Bug ID: 120173
Summary: [OpenACC][gcn-offload] wrong 'firstprivate' with 'acc
parallel async' [modified
libgomp.oacc-fortran/lib-13.f90]
Product: gcc
Version: 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] -Os |[12/13 Regression] -Os
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
