https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120728
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:919f073ae5f45e9cc328be8a914cd80b3a0bc12d
commit r16-1620-g919f073ae5f45e9cc328be8a914cd80b3a0bc12d
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jun 20 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120728
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 16 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Keywords|FIXME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmuizelaar at mozilla dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115606
Bug 115606 depends on bug 82705, which changed state.
Bug 82705 Summary: Missing tail calls for large structs returns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61682
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61682&action=edit
Patch which I am testing but needs some testcases too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
:-) thanks for clarifying, computer math and plethora of
options which have to work together is sometimes confusing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120106
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emr-gnu at hev dot psu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108909
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|13.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104695
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120106
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120106
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8440db955b274472234071f79a35b504e96dc3d1
commit r16-1617-g8440db955b274472234071f79a35b504e96dc3d1
Author: Nicolas Boulenguez
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
--- Comment #4 from newbie-02 ---
IMHO it's fully ok to build Debian with --no-as-needed if it works,
not ok is defaulting the gcc for user individual compilations that
way, it's user trapping.
Do you know if it can be steered individually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||FIXME
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120106
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bab1b2488e2a01b311d584bbecbc6834194e30ed
commit r16-1615-gbab1b2488e2a01b311d584bbecbc6834194e30ed
Author: Nicolas Boulenguez
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See
https://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking#Only_link_with_needed_libraries
which documents this downstream in debian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120734
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120764
Bug ID: 120764
Summary: redefinition errors when using certain std headers in
GMF
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52930
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119007
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think when we discussed his several weeks ago the conclusion was this was a
problem in the intrinsics space.
Essentially the intrinsics can modify FRM and when they do they probably need
to set -fno-roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-22
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug ID: 120763
Summary: [meta-bug] Tracker for bugs to visit during weekly
RISC-V meeting
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
--- Comment #14 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Shouldn't that be WONTFIX instead of FIXED?
Or do you count changes in hardware architecture trends as a 'fix',
as we see multi-core systems that use the same instruction set architecture
for a num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120761
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Nothing uses it so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119830
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119830
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07c02ff39e121a496c46d3a997a25e2f46ce227e
commit r16-1614-g07c02ff39e121a496c46d3a997a25e2f46ce227e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sun Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34e1e5e33ec3eb475c0c8278800b6fc246a86763
commit r16-1613-g34e1e5e33ec3eb475c0c8278800b6fc246a86763
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Jun 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120752
--- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl ---
Created attachment 61680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61680&action=edit
perf report -n output before Honza's commit
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
> if you happen to have bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
Bug ID: 120762
Summary: PRINT: issue activating "Q" print format specifier
[solved]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120752
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl ---
Created attachment 61681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61681&action=edit
perf report -n output after Honza's commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120106
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> v02 passes GNATMAKE_FOR_BUILD via BASE_TARGET_EXPORT instead of
> EXTRA_TARGET_FLAGS. Is this less ugly?
Yes, thanks, I'm going to apply it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120761
Bug ID: 120761
Summary: GM2_FOR_BUILD is not substituted in the toplevel
Makefile
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120758
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG also rejects this code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 120735, which changed state.
Bug 120735 Summary: -Warray-bounds error via std::vector::data after unsigned
int overflow potential
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120735
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120760
Bug ID: 120760
Summary: Deducing array bound with a small unsigned integral
type silently overflows
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120741
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to cuilili from comment #1)
> Created attachment 61678 [details]
> Fix-shrink-wrap-separate-ICE-for-mingw
>
> Hi Sergei,
>
> Thanks for reporting this issue and providing a small testcase. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |libgcc
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is an ext-dce bug, it just isn't obvious.
ext-dce removes the extension in this insn:
(insn 26 24 29 3 (set (reg:DI 141 [ pretmp_16 ])
(zero_extend:DI (subreg:QI (reg:DI 160) 0))) "j.c":8:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] ICE in |[15/16 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|Incorrect under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120736
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-22
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #2)
> Does it still fail with the fix for PR 120701?
Sadly, the fix for pr120701 doesn't help. I can still replicate this on
r16-1594-gb03e0d69b37f6e and on current t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118734
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120627
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120736 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120745
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure bugzilla is the right place to ask for help while working on a
patch/pass; the gcc@ mailing list is where that normally takes place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Summary|[16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compiler doesn't generate a |simd attribute needs better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115759
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116504
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So for the record. Both testcases failed for me with QEMU. THe first case
worked on real hardware while the second testcase failed on real hardware.
I'm digging data out of an old email, so no clear indi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116773
Bug 116773 depends on bug 113238, which changed state.
Bug 113238 Summary: [14] RISC-V: gcc.dg vect-tsvc flakey test timeouts when
under heavy workload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113238
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113238
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113035
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112531
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in verify_gimple_in_seq |[16 regression] ice in
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120698
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120759
Bug ID: 120759
Summary: Empty initializer list (`{}`) in a parameter pack
disables deduction for the entire pack
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120758
Bug ID: 120758
Summary: Empty initializer list (`{}`) incorrectly deduces an
array size for array reference parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118890
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
I reran the tests on current trunk and did not see the
poly-int failure. Maybe it was fixed in the meantime.
Here are the failures that I am seeing now, with current trunk (duplicates
removed):
./../trunk/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106587
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.4.0, 13.1.0, 14.1.0
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segfault when trying to |[12/13/14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120756
Bug ID: 120756
Summary: internal compiler error: error reporting routines
re-entered with [[deprecated]]
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111623
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120731
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc276742e0db337c4d13e6c474abafd4796a6b69
commit r16-1608-gfc276742e0db337c4d13e6c474abafd4796a6b69
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120757
Bug ID: 120757
Summary: ICE: in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16787
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Inefficient address |Inefficient address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106691
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
84 matches
Mail list logo