https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107244
Bug ID: 107244
Summary: error: invalid position or size in ‘bit_insert_expr’
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107244
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The bug first seems to occur sometime between git hash 248c8aeebc49aae3
and 637e3668fdc17c4e, a day later.
Reduction running now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107244
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107244
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat pr107244.c
typedef char xchar;
struct monst {
struct monst *nmon;
short movement;
char malign;
xchar mx, my;
unsigned : 7;
unsigned : 7;
unsigned : 11;
unsigned mleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107244
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Likely dup of PR107229.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106922
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, jan.zizka at nokia dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106922
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jan ?i?ka ---
> I have backported all three patches but tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #23)
> looking at i386.c put_condition_code used by *setcc_qi, it looks like (EQ
> (reg:CCCmode FLAG_REG) (const_int 0)) means get carry flag.
> Not (LTU: (REG:CCCmode FL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107245
Bug ID: 107245
Summary: calling makeinfo with --no-headers produces invalid
info files
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221013 (experimental) (GCC)
%
% gcc-tk -w -O0 a.c
%
% gcc-tk -w -O3 a.c
a.c: In function ‘e’:
a.c:8:1: error: invalid position or size operand to ‘bit_field_ref’
8 | e() {
| ^
_ifc__16 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_ifc__15, 12, 0xf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107229
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 107246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107246
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107226
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f9a7465c863e482708d2a00f5f7ff91ae3a7e0b
commit r13-3268-g7f9a7465c863e482708d2a00f5f7ff91ae3a7e0b
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> One reduced test case is:
>
>
>
> #include
> #include
>
> #define N 128
> float fl[N];
>
> __attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> The above doesn't look wrong (but may miss the rest of the IL). On
> x86_64 this looks like
>
>[local count: 105119324]:
> # sum0_41 = PHI
> # sum1_39 = PHI
> # sum2_37 = PHI
> # sum3_35 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106922
--- Comment #27 from Jan Žižka ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #26)
>
> They are clearly necessary to fix this bug. What I'm unsure yet about
> is the risk of generally enhancing VN for this diagnostic regression.
> The enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
>
> --- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
> >
> > The above doesn't look wrong (but may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107229
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f0d4adabe2035886a1aa8d2ca990a90de000613
commit r13-3270-g9f0d4adabe2035886a1aa8d2ca990a90de000613
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
> > > Btw, I've fixed a SLP reduction issue two days ago in
> > > r13-3226-gee467644c53ee2
> > > though that looks unrelated?
> >
> > Thanks for the information, I'll double check it.
> >
To rebase to r13-32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
>
> --- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
> > > > Btw, I've fixed a SLP reduction issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
A bit reduced test-case that can be compiled with cross compiler:
$ cat pr107160.c
#define N 16
float fl[N];
__attribute__ ((noipa, optimize (0))) void
init ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
fl[i] = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Aha, so the issue is that we have a vectorized epilogue here and the epilogue
of _that_ ends up doing
[local count: 94607391]:
# sum0_48 = PHI
# sum1_47 = PHI
# sum2_46 = PHI
# sum3_45 = PH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|linkw at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #25 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #24)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #23)
> > looking at i386.c put_condition_code used by *setcc_qi, it looks like (EQ
> > (reg:CCCmode FLAG_REG) (const_int 0))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107247
Bug ID: 107247
Summary: SLP reduction results fail to reduce to a single
accumulator
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107247
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5cbaf84c191b9a3e3cb26545c808d208bdbf2ab5
commit r13-3273-g5cbaf84c191b9a3e3cb26545c808d208bdbf2ab5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] |[12/13 regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107248
Bug ID: 107248
Summary: Sparc V8 Invalid Stack Pointer Code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107248
--- Comment #1 from Dennis Borde ---
Created attachment 53701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53701&action=edit
gcc -v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107249
Bug ID: 107249
Summary: ipa-sra.cc:3030:1: error: insertion out of range in
'bit_insert_expr'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107208
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
it seems releted to targetm.calls.function_value called by assign_parms, who
return different behaviour for MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT and MODE_COMPLEX_INT. With
the following changes, then choose a pair of DI for the int c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107249
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Seurer, Peter,
Adding something like: { xfail { powerpc*-*-* && { ! powerpc_vsx_ok } } } }
should xfail all powerpc architectures that don't support this no?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105773
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cccf644ff92ac1145abdbf255d1862dd787875b
commit r13-3274-g1cccf644ff92ac1145abdbf255d1862dd787875b
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105773
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107226
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106848
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-13
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107247
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5139d18dfb8130876ea59178e8471fb1b34bb80
commit r13-3276-ge5139d18dfb8130876ea59178e8471fb1b34bb80
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107247
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 107247, which changed state.
Bug 107247 Summary: SLP reduction results fail to reduce to a single accumulator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107247
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107250
Bug ID: 107250
Summary: Load unnecessarily happens before malloc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106925
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3130e70dab1e64a7b014391fe941090d5f3b6b7d
commit r13-3277-g3130e70dab1e64a7b014391fe941090d5f3b6b7d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106925
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8794633003318113e03147a727e63f5d55b350ab
commit r12-8829-g8794633003318113e03147a727e63f5d55b350ab
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106925
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc3394507a2303a18891d34222c53f679256c37
commit r13-3281-g6cc3394507a2303a18891d34222c53f679256c37
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102540
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc3394507a2303a18891d34222c53f679256c37
commit r13-3281-g6cc3394507a2303a18891d34222c53f679256c37
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107251
Bug ID: 107251
Summary: RISC-V linux kernel compiled with -mno-relax generates
a lot of local symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26
};
Bar bar{};
bar.a = x_;
}
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20221013/include/c++/13.0.0/algorithm:60,
from
/opt/compiler-explorer/libs/googletest/trunk/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h:137,
from
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107250
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107253
Bug ID: 107253
Summary: gcc does not compile with XCode 14.0.1 / clang 14.0.0
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107253
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Ok, this is definitely Apple's bug, the linker should not be crashing
(asserting).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107253
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107254
Bug ID: 107254
Summary: Wrong vectorizer code (GCC 11 only, Fortran)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85541
aarograh at umich dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aarograh at umich dot edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0, 11.3.0
Summary|Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #24)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #23)
> > looking at i386.c put_condition_code used by *setcc_qi, it looks like (EQ
> > (reg:CCCmode FLAG_REG) (const_int 0)) mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 102540, which changed state.
Bug 102540 Summary: [12/13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3
since r12-476-gd846f225c25c5885
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102540
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107252
--- Comment #2 from Carlos Galvez ---
To clarify, even removing things from the second function has an impact on the
first function (which is where the warning comes from). Shouldn't both
functions be independent?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102540
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107252
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Carlos Galvez from comment #2)
> To clarify, even removing things from the second function has an impact on
> the first function (which is where the warning comes from). Shouldn't both
> functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103621
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
Another oddity is
(set (pc) (if_then_else
(eq (reg:CCO FLAGS_REG) (const_int 0))
(label_ref (match_operand 3))
(pc)))]
CCOmode means that the overflow flag is test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Harald, I looked at your patch and agree that simplification should be done.
> I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor().
Because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 06:43:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107254
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107254
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Fixed with r12-2051-g7d810646d421f697 and started with
> r11-2453-gc89366b12ff4f362.
If so there might be a latent bug still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> If regtesting complete ok,
This is the case.
> and Mikael doesn't find any additional problems. Please commit.
The only thing I was fearing^Wexpectin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:09:28PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:35:30PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> > If regtesting complete ok, and Mikael does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107210
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99da523359e933385484eb3b8f854a98f1b4
commit r13-3285-g99da523359e933385484eb3b8f854a98f1b4
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107210
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-13
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
could still be used for the time being?
There is s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
> addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
> could s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107249
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:56:55PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #28 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> So the issue is with the consumer:
>
> (insn 50 49 51 2 (parallel [
> (set (reg:SI 93)
> (neg:SI (ltu:SI (reg:CCC 17 flags)
> (const_int 0 [0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107248
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107248
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #23)
> looking at i386.c put_condition_code used by *setcc_qi, it looks like (EQ
> (reg:CCCmode FLAG_REG) (const_int 0)) means get carry flag.
> Not (LTU: (REG:CCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #26)
> LTU/GEU are only used to check FLAGS_REG against constant 0.
That is not what
(ltu (reg 17) (const_int 0))
means though?
Together with a previous
(set (re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #23)
> > looking at i386.c put_condition_code used by *setcc_qi, it looks like (EQ
> > (reg:CCCmode FLAG_REG) (const_int 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #30)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #26)
> > LTU/GEU are only used to check FLAGS_REG against constant 0.
>
> That is not what
> (ltu (reg 17) (const_int 0))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107255
Bug ID: 107255
Summary: ation and definition of a template function which vary
in use of concept auto syntax are interpreted as
ambiguous overloadsdeclar
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107256
Bug ID: 107256
Summary: Contradictory circular noexcept-specifier is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107092
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3793 has been submitted.
Such requirement was originally added by N0700
(https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1995/N0700.pdf), but
intented target types were u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the prompt fix! I just verified it fixed the SPEC2006 447.dealII
regression perfectly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106925
--- Comment #8 from Carlos Galvez ---
Awesome, thanks a lot for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107254
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from Ri
95 matches
Mail list logo
