https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #5 from Huiba Li ---
> Marking x as an output without tieing it to another register will have
> garbage in the variable after the inline-asm. That is explicitly mentioned.
Oh, I see.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #3 from 鲁七 ---
> Note the 0 there rather than r. r in the input means any register while 0
> means it needs to match the same register as the 0th operand which in this
> case is the output operand.
Thanks for your quick response. Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Huiba Li from comment #3)
> > Note the 0 there rather than r. r in the input means any register while 0
> > means it needs to match the same register as the 0th operand which in this
> > case is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I think this specific case is overly restrictive - it was likely added for some
loop IV test related regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120285
Bug ID: 120285
Summary: ice in digest_init_r, at cp/typeck2.cc:1397
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120279
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure what you are after? That in f1() the earlier of both shifts can
be removed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61427&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The documentation is clear there too:
>From the page you linked:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Output-Operands
"When using ‘=’, do not assume the location contains the existing value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120284
Bug ID: 120284
Summary: inline assembly operand constraint not comply with
document
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 79485f9678a..7b2cad9d605 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -2598,6 +2598,15 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
)
)
+/* Convert ABS_EX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51859
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The full list of failures due to this missing optimization:
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp12.c
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp60.c
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr20139.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems like many of the single use with respect to comparisons need to be all
relooked into as they are mostly ignored for forwprop in many cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I forgot to say this comes from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp89.c
and gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp93.c .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||93006
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120283
Bug ID: 120283
Summary: `Transform comparisons of the form X +- C1 CMP C2 to X
CMP C2 -+ C1` gimple depends on single use
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119439
Bug 119439 depends on bug 117287, which changed state.
Bug 117287 Summary: [13 Regression] assume attribute related miscompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108630
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qubos at outlook dot de
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120266
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dce408e28c416f3a34f487e4f8bb2a1e1e586c69
commit r13-9657-gdce408e28c416f3a34f487e4f8bb2a1e1e586c69
Author: Andrew MacLeo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120266
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120282
Bug ID: 120282
Summary: -Warray-bounds triggered incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120098
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #18 from James K. Lowden ---
The logic slated for obliteration is in symbol_declaratives_add() and anything
associated with it. That was the old way -- now weeks and weeks outdated -- to
move declarative descriptors to the library.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113773
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120251
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
[local count: 1073741824]:
# size_34 = PHI <[/app/example.cpp:123:12] 0(2), [/app/example.cpp:127:9]
size_35(3)>
# DEBUG size => size_34
[/app/example.cpp:126:29] # DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
[/app/example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113773
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54846260bf9ac1e6253f3ce7ffa7baca049efcdd
commit r14-11784-g54846260bf9ac1e6253f3ce7ffa7baca049efcdd
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120281
Bug ID: 120281
Summary: -Warray-bounds produces an incorrect warning when
compiled with -O3 and --coverage
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/88fdef1f-66fc-48d1-a2a4-7e719711a...@linaro.org/
Maybe there is a way, I'll revisit this and look at what current glibc does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The addition to c++config.h works need to be before os_defines.h is included.
But as I said I'm comment 2, I don't think either of the suggestions in comment
1 works. IIRC the way glibc ended up doing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O0 code generation is not important.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> r15-3530-gdfb63765e994be is listed as dependent, but is it? Can this be
> backported?
The patch applies cleanly, but unfortunately it doesn't help with this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a16584beb312bfc493977e472dcb9d11ad5bc76
commit r14-11783-g9a16584beb312bfc493977e472dcb9d11ad5bc76
Author: Nathaniel S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
fold_binary_loc does:
```
/* Convert ABS_EXPR >= 0 to true. */
strict_overflow_p = false;
if (code == GE_EXPR
&& (integer_zerop (arg1)
|| (! HONOR_NANS (arg0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
Bug ID: 120280
Summary: ABS < 0 is not optimized to false by match
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120206
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
With this patch (and the match part of the patch attached):
```
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ git diff
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.cc
index 3187314390f..741d62135ac 100644
--- a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|14.2.1 |15.1.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114292
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
commit r16-639-g7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120126
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
commit r16-639-g7ec6f7da7064a6ab9f443e3a03d4401d8bc5ae23
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12/13/14/15|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120139
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f9c7b5258f2af89bba8e954c277981d2e2ee1ef
commit r16-638-g4f9c7b5258f2af89bba8e954c277981d2e2ee1ef
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120107
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa0dff8e99e81bc7a3db1dc57d4fc340e0525b1d
commit r16-637-gfa0dff8e99e81bc7a3db1dc57d4fc340e0525b1d
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120279
Bug ID: 120279
Summary: Missed DCE for __builtin_{clzg,ctzg} when bitshift
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120278
Bug ID: 120278
Summary: [9/10/11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Switch expansion
generates extra compares with -fno-jump-tables
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Steve, I am still working on it. Always other things getting me in the time
domain. (poles and zeros so to speak, LOL)
I do like some of the checks in Comment #27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05db28033e4377466bb19f317e67ed91b92fd4a9
commit r14-11782-g05db28033e4377466bb19f317e67ed91b92fd4a9
Author: Joseph Myers
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
> I'm a little nervous about backporting this one.
Fine - you know more about this than me ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
That doesn't fix anything.
https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/home:Andreas_Schwab:riscv:gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120160
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #1)
> `import std;` in every header looks too heavy to me. IMO it's undesired to
> import std::cin and its friends from .
If you're thinking about the global static init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120266
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can use it for all your own code, and and other libraries you rely on, you
just can't build libstdc++.a with LTO. Last I heard, the same is true for
glibc.
But sure, if you think it's not worth using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc1c1e7f0bb3a295eff1bc8c5d4f4d4b2898d50
commit r14-11779-g1dc1c1e7f0bb3a295eff1bc8c5d4f4d4b2898d50
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm a little nervous about backporting this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116379
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c11cb308c1e2aae427d6f32a1144ae8907dc2649
commit r14-11780-gc11cb308c1e2aae427d6f32a1144ae8907dc2649
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117501, which changed state.
Bug 117501 Summary: [14 Regression] Consteval constructor does not initialize
the variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52202e42919d0d95c13889bed9e69b954e4376af
commit r14-11778-g52202e42919d0d95c13889bed9e69b954e4376af
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116960
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ce96b683a40a12299c1d0e02727e747c00ad883
commit r14-11777-g9ce96b683a40a12299c1d0e02727e747c00ad883
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119303
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ce96b683a40a12299c1d0e02727e747c00ad883
commit r14-11777-g9ce96b683a40a12299c1d0e02727e747c00ad883
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118775
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97121b135530b15bc7d1b9e24daa566d9b0473b0
commit r14-11776-g97121b135530b15bc7d1b9e24daa566d9b0473b0
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120276
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117905
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As noted at https://github.com/oneapi-src/oneDPL/issues/1955 the standard has
some defects regarding the requirements for these numeric algos. It's necessary
to assume some additional requirements such as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120259
--- Comment #1 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
We should use _Arg&& in is_invokable checks here:
```
template
constexpr enable_if_t, _Res>
__invoke_r(_Callable&& __fn, _Args&&... __args)
noexcept(is_nothrow_invocable_r_v<_Res, _Callable,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118775
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
On it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #24 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #23)
> (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #11)
> > It comes with a similar pattern that .gnu.lto_.jmpfuncs.1 is the most
> > different section ignoring offset differences and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110339
Bug 110339 depends on bug 119125, which changed state.
Bug 119125 Summary: [C++26] Implement P2548R6 copyable_function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9055d010475fa1c624d6036881eee9c37034b21
commit r16-620-gd9055d010475fa1c624d6036881eee9c37034b21
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120266
--- Comment #6 from Quentin Boswank ---
Why does LTO even exists when I can use it to its full potential. I might not
use it like this. /rant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0d36c822c8b0918583c6bc3b1db01f2bb7f226b
commit r16-619-gf0d36c822c8b0918583c6bc3b1db01f2bb7f226b
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Dec 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119844
--- Comment #4 from Nathaniel Shead ---
(In reply to printfne from comment #3)
> Thank you for the solution you proposed. It is indeed very useful. Besides,
> I want to know if the C++ standard has any regulations on the symbols
> exported in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e93f7cd4ed0cf6bcfda90ed4dcad51a1f65b4b6
commit r16-618-g0e93f7cd4ed0cf6bcfda90ed4dcad51a1f65b4b6
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120277
Bug ID: 120277
Summary: Crash at -O2: in upper_bound, at value-range.h:1181
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120160
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:708d40ff109c6e49d02b684a368571722a160af8
commit r16-617-g708d40ff109c6e49d02b684a368571722a160af8
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 119246, which changed state.
Bug 119246 Summary: Result basic_format_arg::check_dynamic_spec is incorrect
for extended floating point types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119246
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119246
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #12 from Nathaniel Shead ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> (In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #10)
> > This is fixed for GCC 15. Unfortunately this patch isn't appropriate for
> > backporting as it will caus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119246
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c9a7316adb99693e237164908893a78b86ba000
commit r16-616-g9c9a7316adb99693e237164908893a78b86ba000
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120276
Bug ID: 120276
Summary: [16 Regression] ICE in partial_subreg_p with SVE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: aarch64-sve, ice-on-valid-code
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 120125, which changed state.
Bug 120125 Summary: [15/16 Regression] ICE in add_to_same_comdat_group when
using -Os or -fdeclone-ctor-dtor since r15-521-g6ad7ca1bb90573
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|15.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120276
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jschmitz at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
