https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
OK, reproduced with:
```
$ ~/git/gcc/configure --prefix=/usr --with-build-config="bootstrap-lto
bootstrap-O3" BOOT_CFLAGS="-O3 -march=znver2" BOOT_CXXFLAGS="-O3 -march=znver2"
$ make profiledbootstrap -j$(nproc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120630
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|wrong code at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61620&action=edit
build.log.xz
It's during stagetrain, actually..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 regression] |[16 regression]
|bootstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
```
==2259076== Invalid write of size 8
==2259076==at 0x57F874A: ipa_predicate::stream_in(lto_input_block*)
(ipa-predicate.cc:614)
==2259076==by 0x577856A: inline_read_section(lto_file_decl_data*, char
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120629
Bug ID: 120629
Summary: [16 regression] bootstrap-lto fails
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120613
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to P. Ruber from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > or might it be a dup of bug 98845 . Both were fixed in Feburary .
>
> Should these be backported to GCC 14 by upstream or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120578
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
> violating the Semantic Preservation Principle
No such principle applies for UB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
As I said, I don't see that at all on my alpha crosses. But why not just patch
out that warning for now instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #20 from Sam James ---
If you're that keen on the issue, why not build a kernel with the patch and
compare the trees (or build a GCC yourself with that)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
I think that may be barking up the wrong tree. We had issues like that on HPPA
and we ended up removing the warning, but I've also never seen anyone report
that on alpha/hppa before confusing configure tests (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > As jwakely explained before, you cannot use git blame and friends on a
> > shallow clone.
>
> Oh dear, this again.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120559
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
__attribute__((noinline)) void write_to_hw(uint32_t channel, uint32_t * ptr) {
while (1) {
hw_low_level_write(channel, (*ptr | (channel & 3)));
if (!hw_low_level_overflow(channel, 7)) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120560
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|wrong code at -O{s,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|pzheng at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120552
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116681
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ric.larsson at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80006
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Indeed, it XPASSes for me on x86_64 now:
+XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c missing range info for short (test for
warnings, line 51)
+XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c missing range info for signed char (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-04
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Have you replaced your system native gcc with a cross compiler...?
Ah, nevermind this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Have you replaced your system native gcc with a cross compiler...?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120509
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Why are you passing --enable-bootstrap for a cross build?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120504
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120496
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Dennis Clarke from comment #2)
> May be trivial to fix given that the error only ever happens in the final
> stage of the bootstrap.
No, there's a lot more. If it were just this, I would give you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120496
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
There's a bunch of porting required to get GNAT working on musl. I may work on
it this stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120488
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 15.1.0
Summary|-fsanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> I cannot reproduce it locally, nor on godbolt:
> https://godbolt.org/z/rxf8Es1n5.
Try the C++ FE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120455
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to lavr from comment #5)
> Wow, it's a ten year old problem now is breaking the builds because of the
> warning to error promotion! The latter should not have been done with the
> outstanding problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61538
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61538&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 regression] qcoro fails |[16 regression] qcoro fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120455
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
https://x.com/__phantomderp/status/1804967387864691052
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61534&action=edit
partial.cpp.ii.xz
Attaching a partial reduction, still running, but it's slow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
Bug ID: 120453
Summary: [16 regression] qcoro fails to build its tests
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> It bisects to r15-8901-g7bec4570301c43 which I find very surprising. Double
> checked with a build of r15-8900-g525d4a10302113 (which works) and
> r15-8901-g7bec4570301c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[15/16 regression] gnat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from Sam Jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Bug ID: 120440
Summary: [15/16 regression] gnat exception handling miscompiled
(`gnat ls` crashes when bootstrapped with
-march=znver3)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86792
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
r14-11803-gf644e21ee36440 fixes this but it's missing on releases/gcc-15 and
trunk...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||plugin
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110823
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71657
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #14)
> /* Disabled due to PRs 70902, 71453, 71555, 71596 and 71657. */
>
> All of those except for PR71453 were dependent on tom's fix (PR83327) so
> should be ready to revi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109982
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115539
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Summary|[12/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120425
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[12/13/14/15/16 regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120422
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Please send patches to gcc-patches@ (https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html) once
they're ready. It's okay to include WIP stuff on Bugzilla, but patches on BZ
won't get reviewed seriously or applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120417
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-source
--- Comment #1 from Sam James
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59525|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110710
--- Comment #19 from Sam James ---
Peter, now that 14.3 is out, maybe propose it as a backport on the ML?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119930
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #11)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> > -fno-ipa-cp works
>
> It does not help for me, can you double check, please?
I can't reproduce that now either (i.e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100837
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120374
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Wait, you're reporting this for GCC 9.3.0? Anything under 12 is EOL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In reply to admin from comment #0)
> Command triggering issue (as invoked by make):
> [...]
Please run this with -save-temps appened, then upload camerabuffer.ii (or
.cpp.ii). This is the preprocessed source m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120376
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
-fno-alloc-dce seems to work.
Where did you see =0 documented? I only see
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fno-malloc-dce
mentioning 1 and 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120273
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
```
[...]
==838291== Invalid read of size 1
==838291==at 0x8EB7F10: __strcmp_avx2 (strcmp-avx2.S:249)
==838291==by 0x5EF52CE: UnknownInlinedFun (splay-tree.c:151)
==838291==by 0x5EF52CE: UnknownInlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110282
--- Comment #23 from Sam James ---
Thanks Martin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61472|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61473&action=edit
build.sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Bug ID: 120358
Summary: [15/16 regression] qtbase-6.9.0 miscompiled since
r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[16 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120347
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120347
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110282
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Summary|ldrex r1, [s14], in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
For completeness, my pastes are with:
$ as --version
GNU assembler (Gentoo p1) 2.44.50.20250518
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120351
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
```
# diff -u <(g++-14 /tmp/a.cxx -O2 -S -mfpu=neon -o -) <(g++-15 /tmp/a.cxx -O2
-S -mfpu=neon -o -)
--- /dev/fd/63 2025-05-19 10:57:07.663372453 -
+++ /dev/fd/62 2025-05-19 10:57:07.666705782 -
@@ -3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120347
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|invalid arm32/thumb |[15/16 regression] invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120334
Bug ID: 120334
Summary: lto plugin doesn't check for excess section size
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O{s,2,3} |[16 regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032#c5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120286
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OpenMP] Double free|[12/13/14/15/16 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119930
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The only difference between the testcase in comment #8 and the one in the
> testsuite is that the code is moved to a named function other than main and
> then that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> ```
> $ gfortran-14 gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -o a -ff2c -O2 --param
> max-inline-insns-size=50 && ./a
> STOP 1
> ```
It fails with this going back to GCC 9, but GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
```
$ gfortran-14 gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -o a -ff2c -O2 --param
max-inline-insns-size=50 && ./a
STOP 1
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120295
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
.. and I guess with trunk, it starts to fail with the inlining changes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120295
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to mcccs from comment #4)
> (can't bisect, because) not reproducible on aarch64
What about with -fsigned-char?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120288
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Summary|spurious null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120277
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] Crash at|[16 Regression] Crash at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118286
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51859
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 2410 matches
Mail list logo
