https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119294
Bug ID: 119294
Summary: Strange (buggy?) codegen when passing cleared vector
as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #16 from Niklas Haas ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #15)
> (In reply to Niklas Haas from comment #12)
> > Out of curiosity, is there a work-around that I could use to get current
> > versions of GCC to compile the ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #12 from Niklas Haas ---
Out of curiosity, is there a work-around that I could use to get current
versions of GCC to compile the right thing, but without breaking cross-platform
compatibility?
I did try replacing the assertion by "x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #1 from Niklas Haas ---
Clang's output for comparison:
lshift:
vmovdqu ymm0, ymmword ptr [rdi]
vmovd xmm1, esi
vpsllw ymm0, ymm0, xmm1
vmovdqu ymmword ptr [rdi], ymm0
vzeroupper
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
Bug ID: 119103
Summary: Very suboptimal AVX2 code generation of simple shift
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118670
Jeremy R. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118670
Bug ID: 118670
Summary: -Wdangling-reference false positive when returning a
reference from a reference_wrapper
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101587
Jonathan Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at jonathanmueller dot dev
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118147
Bug ID: 118147
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic push causes errors when used in
IILE in struct member initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
--- Comment #4 from Rémi MARSAL ---
Thanks for pointing out the man page Jakub. This makes sense now.
Apologies about this report.
However, I don't understand why cpp doesn't raise an error because the input
file doesn't exist.
I recursively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
Bug ID: 117968
Summary: running "cpp" with malformed arguments can cause input
file deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117217
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
This ICEs on trunk without [[gnu::packed]]:
struct a {
int b;
long c;
long d;
bool f;
};
struct g {
int b;
long c;
long d;
bool : 1;
} h;
struct l {
union i {
a j;
g k;
i(g m) : k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117217
Bug ID: 117217
Summary: ICE in tree-sra when copying struct with a union of
packed structs with bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
Andrew Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.jones at linux dot dev
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116534
Bug ID: 116534
Summary: [14 regression] internal compiler error with
comparison of pointers calculated with array offset
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116274
Bug ID: 116274
Summary: x86: poor code generation with 16 byte function
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115313
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Reduced:
#include
std::string foo() {
std::string str;
return str;
}
: In function 'std::string foo()':
:4:17: warning: use of uninitialized value '' [CWE-457]
[-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115313
Bug ID: 115313
Summary: False positive -fanalyzer use of uninitialized value
due to std::string's default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
Hi, can you clarify what you mean? Why does -gsplit-dwarf without -gdwarf-5
emit in debug fission with extended dwarf-4 if it's specifically dealing with
dwarf 5?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Ope, my bad, it appears the section is generated properly with -gsplit-dwarf
-gdwarf-5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
Bug ID: 115235
Summary: Non-standard .debug_addr section
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Does recursive inlining here interfere with TCO, or is GCC just not able to TCO
in this case?
I can understand why some bounded recursive inlining may be desirable, however
in this case it seems very not ideal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
Bug ID: 115201
Summary: Recursive binary search is incorrectly inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114854
Bug ID: 114854
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE with default initializer of const
reference member at cp/cp-gimplify.cc:900
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114784
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Bertalan ---
I tried Jakub's patch (thank you for the super quick response!), it crashes if
the constructor has non-type template parameters:
template struct SpanImpl {
template SpanImpl();
};
template struct Sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114784
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Forgot to actually post the error message itself:
In constructor 'ErrorOr::ErrorOr(int)',
inlined from 'ErrorOr run()' at :29:10,
inlined from 'int serenity_main()' at :32:8:
:13:39: error: inlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114784
Bug ID: 114784
Summary: [14 Regression] Inlining fails for always_inline
inheriting constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114160
Bug ID: 114160
Summary: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_offset RISCV
thead-c906
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113392
Bug ID: 113392
Summary: Missed fold of loading 8 consecutive bytes leading to
a missed byteswap optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #21 from Jeremy R. ---
Another option might be just do nothing and don't set the badbit, just pretend
it's an empty string. This shouldn't break existing programs and would at least
be something a programmer could more easily track do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy R. ---
Silently ruining the behavior of the rest of a program and leaving the
programmer to pull their hair out over what on earth is happening seems very
un-ideal behavior.
This is a very easy mistake to make and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick response
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
Bug ID: 111729
Summary: Design considerations for operator<<(basic_ostream&,
const charT*)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #18 from psykose ---
> Could you please run a regression to identify which commit along GCC-13
> branch introduce the change at least to get the ball rolling ?
note that it might not actually be a regression; it's possible the cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
John Drouhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at drouhard dot dev
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111242
Bug ID: 111242
Summary: Out of bounds pointer arithmetic not caught in
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
psykose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alice at ayaya dot dev
--- Comment #10 from p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #3 from psykose ---
oh wow, completely identical! i didn't find that somehow, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #1 from psykose ---
forgot to mention, but this is on alpine linux.
i can't seem to reproduce this with g++13 '13.1.0' on debian sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
Bug ID: 110804
Summary: [13 regression] eliminate_stmt ICE on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy R. ---
Thanks for tracking down the duplicates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
I wasn't able to get this to work with unsigned either
https://godbolt.org/z/bGcW7ebjd but maybe there's some other way to trigger
this optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
Bug ID: 110203
Summary: Sum should optimize to closed form
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109727
Bug ID: 109727
Summary: [13/14 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109683
Bug ID: 109683
Summary: [13/14 Regression] False cyclic dependency error
reported for constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #14 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Here is something to look into:
> #define const1 0x0101010101010101ULL
> #define const0 const1
> unsigned long long f(unsigned long long occ, const unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy R. ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta ---
Ok it seems I missed _some_ improvement with prev change, although not ideal
still.
With 2e886eef7f2b
li a0,0x0101_
addia0,a0,0x0101
sllia0,a0,16
addia0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #11 from Vineet Gupta ---
With change suggested by @pinksia, I do see that in split1,
riscv_move_integer() -> riscv_split_integer() is now called.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #10 from Vineet Gupta ---
I tried removing the in_splitter check (in 2 places), but no change in
results.
@@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ riscv_force_temporary (rtx dest, rtx value, bool
in_splitter)
- if (can_create_pseudo_p () && !in_spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> If this was about -Os, then I would say yes this is a big code bloat but
> this is about -O2.
But this is not so much about code bloat, we see 3.5% additional dy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
We start off with following:
(insn 18 17 19 2 (set (reg:DI 154)
(mem/u/c:DI (reg/f:DI 155) [0 S8 A64])) "...":9:8 179 {*movdi_64bit}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 155)
(expr_list:REG_EQU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
Bug ID: 109279
Summary: [13 Regression] RISC-V: complex constants synthesized
vs. fetching from constant pool
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109111
--- Comment #1 from John Drouhard ---
https://godbolt.org/z/csozden6e
example of gcc not diagnosing mismatched requires clauses (and clang correctly
doing so).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Müller ---
Sorry, wrong godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/f1fGExsr7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
Bug ID: 109096
Summary: __has_unique_object_representations does not account
for unnamed bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109044
Bug ID: 109044
Summary: Missed fold for (n - 1) / 2 when n is odd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #5 from John Drouhard ---
Has there been any progress toward resolution for this? We've been trying to
use coroutines in our project but we require LTO for performance reasons, so
this is holding us back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621
Bug ID: 108621
Summary: [12 regression]: bind(c) pointer array spurious
maybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107363
Bug ID: 107363
Summary: Wrong caret location for "redundant move in return
statement"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
The easy solution is to mention both the bitfield and "hey maybe you meant to
use a ;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Bug ID: 107178
Summary: Diagnosis for colon vs semi-colon in a member function
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106727
Bug ID: 106727
Summary: Missed fold / canonicalization for checking if a
number is a power of 2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106439
Bug ID: 106439
Summary: RISC-V suboptimal codegen for large constants
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #10 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created a small test case which emulates generation of 2 split consts.
void foo(void)
{
bar(2072, 2096);
}
253r.expand has 4 instructions: Pair of LI 4096 + ADDI for each const.
260r.fwprop1 prune
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
The redundant Insn 2660 is reload inserted for Insn 1717
1717: r1871:DI=frame:DI+r2813:DI
Inserting insn reload before:
2660: r2814:DI=0x1000
2661: r2813:DI=r2814:DI-0x7e8
REG_EQUAL 0x818
Insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #8 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created attachment 53332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53332&action=edit
Full reload output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #7 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So why do we even emit unsupported 'li 4096' and leave it to the linker to
> "optimize(?)"?
li 4096 is really a pseudo-op - LUI is used to build 32-bit constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
Going back to first dump (upstream 6abe341558a w/o riscv_rtx_costs() adj): the
3rd instruction addi is marking a2 REG_DEAD at 315 cprop.hardreg
--->8 314r.rnreg
(insn 2663 2662 1714 3 (set (reg:DI 13 a3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
Digging into RTL dumps, the li instructions are introduced by 300r reload.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
I've experimented with riscv_rtx_costs() setting cost of const to 1 as
discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98596. This does
reduce the number of li 4096 instances to 10 (from 14), but th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Analyzed a section of -dP dump where reg a2 is setup with exact same value
while being live.
rhs-cred.cc:42: (*(double *)((char *)&ao)[k] + *(double *)((char *)0)[12] +
#(insn 2662 1711 76 (set (reg:DI 12 a2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
Bug ID: 106265
Summary: RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu code bloat due to address
generation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105811
Bug ID: 105811
Summary: Diagnostics for template class member call with
missing template parameters can be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #14 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick patch :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy R. ---
One workaround in the general case is
decltype(ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr)) =
libassert_decomposer = ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} <<
expr);
But this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1)
> > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
>
> The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
Bug ID: 105734
Summary: Regression: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 105666, which changed state.
Bug 105666 Summary: RISC-V 507.cactuBSSN_r build has costly FMV instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101674
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595428.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineet.gupta at linux dot dev
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Bug ID: 105666
Summary: RISC-V 507.cactuBSSN_r build has costly FMV
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Created attachment 52740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52740&action=edit
Proposed patch #2
Actually, my proposed patch was definitely incorrect. It didn't allow me to
circumvent the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
Bug ID: 105130
Summary: gcc does not warn about unused return value of last
expression of statement expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
Bug ID: 104702
Summary: [12 Regression] False positive -Wunused-value warning
with -fno-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Bug ID: 104391
Summary: Gfortran 9 regression with bind(C) and allocatable or
pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Bug ID: 104284
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression
'' of kind implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Here's an even smaller test case (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/ee9GceMx3):
===
template struct Optional {
~Optional() {
if (m_has_value)
value();
}
T value();
bool m_has_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103858
Bug ID: 103858
Summary: [12 Regression] strlen() implementation is optimized
into a call to strlen() at -O2, causing infinite
recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
Bug ID: 103819
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in redirect_callee, at
cgraph.c:1389 with __attribute__((flatten)) and -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103765
Bug ID: 103765
Summary: Missed arithmetic simplification for multiplication +
division
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
--- Comment #2 from Niklas Haas ---
Created attachment 52010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52010&action=edit
No deprecation warning produced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
Niklas Haas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52009|no_warning.c|warning.c
filename|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
Bug ID: 103738
Summary: No warning when setting deprecated fields using
designated initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
Bug ID: 103559
Summary: Can't optimize away < 0 check on sqrt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So maybe the switchconv pass could be
> improved not to do just the linear etc. expression handling, but also
> consider code sequences that are the same except for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Bug ID: 103072
Summary: Folding common switch code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
