https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #13 from Nikita Kniazev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> The reality is ms_printf most likely should just include z and ll support
> instead since they are supported now:
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #9 from Nikita Kniazev ---
Ok, is there at least an option to build GCC so it defaults __printf__ to
gnu_printf? Defaulting __printf__ to ms_printf on UCRT is wrong (every OS
without UCRT is already EOL).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #7 from Nikita Kniazev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #5)
> > > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at
> > > one point %ll didn't exist for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
--- Comment #5 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one
> point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then.
Do you mean that binutils and [other code out
there](
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775
Bug ID: 114775
Summary: on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__,
...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93016
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
--- Comment #3 from Nikita Kniazev ---
For cond == 789
if (cond_2(D) == 789)
goto ; [20.24%]
else
goto ; [79.76%]
For cond != 789
if (cond_2(D) != 789)
goto ; [48.88%]
else
goto ; [51.12%]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #6 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> Did you see this in real code or you just noticed this while looking at code
> generation?
If you mean do I have any benchmark - unfortunately no. I noticed it for a
while by poking different code to co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
--- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> Why do you think this is a bug?
> I don't see anything wrong with the newer versions of gcc.
> Duplicating the basic blocks is done on purpose for speed reasons.
I understand that removing diamonds is do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108992
Bug ID: 108992
Summary: Regression: Branch direction canonicalization leads to
pointless tail duplication / CSE/sinking by inverting
branch
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92145
--- Comment #3 from Nikita Kniazev ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Fixed?
It is fixed on trunk but still presented in every release (since the fix landed
9.4 and 11.2 were released). I assume it was not backported, could you pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101923
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101537
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101813
Bug ID: 101813
Summary: -O3 does worse at constant folding than -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492
--- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev ---
Could this be backported? The issue affects every release with
-Wdeprecated-copy, which are GCC 9+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858
--- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> That's really a duplicate of 100858 - this case can be handled by sinking as
> well
> since we "sink" the return. Make it
>
> void bar();
>
> int foo(bool f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858
Bug ID: 100858
Summary: Simple common code hoisting is not performed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100857
Bug ID: 100857
Summary: Simple common code sinking is not performed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100608
Bug ID: 100608
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow=compatible-local false
positive: function local type declaration shadows
variable of different type
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100243
Bug ID: 100243
Summary: [10 Regression] invalid use of incomplete type
'std::__detail::__iter_traits >' {aka 'struct
std::indirectly_readable_traits'}
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100021
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100021
Bug ID: 100021
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] std::clamp unprofitable
vectorization on -march=nehalem/.../broadwell
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Bug ID: 99795
Summary: -Wnarrowing/-Woverflow false-negative in constant
expression in undeduced context
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
--- Comment #7 from Nikita Kniazev ---
The fix silenced the true warning (though it was saying 'may') in these:
template struct X {};
template X foo();
int x = sizeof(foo());
template struct X {};
template
struct foo { using t = X; };
foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
--- Comment #3 from Nikita Kniazev ---
This one most likely has the same root problem:
template struct X {};
template
struct foo { using t = X; };
:3:26: error: conversion from 'long unsigned int' to 'int' may change
value [-Werror=conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
Bug ID: 99331
Summary: -Wconversion false-positive in immidiate context
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
Bug ID: 99305
Summary: [11 Regression] range condition simplification after
inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
32 matches
Mail list logo
