https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112795
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6c78feea08c36e5754818c6a3d7536b3f8913dc
commit r14-6107-gb6c78feea08c36e5754818c6a3d7536b3f8913dc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:994d6dc64435d6b7c50accca9941ee7decd92a22
commit r14-6108-g994d6dc64435d6b7c50accca9941ee7decd92a22
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112837
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4586d7d0a92e9b60d0c01043e0ae262b1e06f337
commit r14-6109-g4586d7d0a92e9b60d0c01043e0ae262b1e06f337
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112795
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for GCC 14+, backports if any will be more limited.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112837
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE: |[12/13 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112813
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:462ccc3b9d5625cdc6104322a417bcd1ff1a8ff4
commit r14-6110-g462ccc3b9d5625cdc6104322a417bcd1ff1a8ff4
Author: Pan Li
Date: Mon Dec 4 16:06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112818
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-04
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112837
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, that function does later
else if (may_use_call && !might_overlap
&& ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC_P (MEM_ADDR_SPACE (x))
&& ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC_P (MEM_ADDR_SPACE (y)))
{
so only emits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112842
Bug ID: 112842
Summary: Constrained parameter pack with trailing param gives
no matching function.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The following avoids gimplifying to a memcpy, but we are not prepared for
WITH_SIZE_EXPR in GIMPLE assigns (guess we think we can handle all with
memcpy). Removing the verification makes the testcase "work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112842
--- Comment #1 from John Eivind Helset ---
hopefully not a duplicate, couldn't find any matching ones,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69623 was the closest i could
find.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110606
--- Comment #6 from Jeevitha ---
The ICE is happenning on the following insn at final_scan,
(insn 80 146 111 (set (reg:DI 28 28 [145])
(high:DI (unspec:DI [
(reg:DI 2 2)
] UNSPEC_TLSLD))) "test.ii":28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112768
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b6e2cb7e61ebb7006a89fa75869ec1a3e0a6e33
commit r14-6111-g9b6e2cb7e61ebb7006a89fa75869ec1a3e0a6e33
Author: Indu Bhagat
Date: Mon D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6abc5dbfa5342347828b9feb4d9060071ff819c
commit r14-6112-gb6abc5dbfa5342347828b9feb4d9060071ff819c
Author: Indu Bhagat
Date: Mon D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112461
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB |
|Is/i386-ABI/-/issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99741
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96895
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB |
|Is/x86-64-ABI/-/issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111288
Bruno Haible changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp ---
I didn't yet look at all those closer because they are more dump failures than
real execution failures.
The ones I checked are
expected
"^foobar$" but got:
"foobar"
so I considered this rather an environmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7804b4e24cd16283067225d4c2c4a4483a2b31bc
commit r14-6113-g7804b4e24cd16283067225d4c2c4a4483a2b31bc
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #32 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #30)
> afaik the best we have so far is
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112613#c0
we also know that pipewire fails a test (test-filter) when built for -m32, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
Except vv/wv variant widen instructions.
All other widen EEW overlap have been done.
It seems that current register filter can not help us simulate accurate
highest-number overlap for vwadd.vv/vwadd.wv instru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112838
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109551
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eng.ahmad.nour at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112838
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ahmad Nour from comment #2)
> I tried with clang-12 -Wall -Wextra main.cpp, but I didn't get that
> hint/note. Am I missing something?
You should get that note with clang-12 (and newer versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112832
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-04
Ever confirmed|0
ccc3b9d5-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20231204 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112818
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is we're having
_8 = __builtin_bswap16 (type_6(D));
with short _8 and int type_6 due to C argument promotion applied because
of promote_prototypes.
Since the arg is an external_def we coul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112827
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de0ab339a795352c843f6e9b2dfce222f26588de
commit r14-6114-gde0ab339a795352c843f6e9b2dfce222f26588de
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Is there a valid testcase that has __memx as the destination? Or is there an
address space with similar constraints that allows non-const accesses?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112844
Bug ID: 112844
Summary: Branches under -Os (unlike -O{1,2,3}) do not respect
__builtin_expect hints
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #11 from Robin Dapp ---
Verified they work locally but also fail on a different server. Also fail
without vector and at -O0. Maybe it's different tcl versions or the shell
doing wonky stuff?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
Ok, on my server the difference is that I didn't add vext_spec=v1.0 to the qemu
options. This caused the qemu diagnostic which would of course not match the
expected output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112818
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80d67d8f682a6050a3bf4dcfa18a83f321986f2a
commit r14-6116-g80d67d8f682a6050a3bf4dcfa18a83f321986f2a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27fde325d64447a3a0d5d550c5976e5f3fb6dc16
commit r14-6117-g27fde325d64447a3a0d5d550c5976e5f3fb6dc16
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Dec 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105510
Andy Shevchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andy.shevchenko at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:018ba3ac952bed4ae01344c060360f13f7cc084a
commit r14-6118-g018ba3ac952bed4ae01344c060360f13f7cc084a
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Dec 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Bug ID: 112845
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2804 with -Os
-fcf-protection -c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> _at most_.
So it does
// Only update if it already had a value.
if (m_cach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> > _at most_.
>
> So it does
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112785
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c2ea80a4ffbddc0bc29f5badaf2ae43e59483b2
commit r14-6120-g0c2ea80a4ffbddc0bc29f5badaf2ae43e59483b2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Bug ID: 112846
Summary: [14 Regression] nvptx: 'FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon6.C
-std=c++20 scan-assembler
_Z5dummyIXtl8wrapper1IdEtlNS1_Ut_Edi9RightNametlNS2_Ut
_Edi9Rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112847
Bug ID: 112847
Summary: [14 Regression] nvptx: 'FAIL:
g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-explicit-inst1.C -std=c++20
scan-assembler _Z1gI1XEvT_', 'scan-assembler
_Z1gI1YEvT_'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56788&action=edit
gcc14-pr112845.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112847
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> > _at most_.
>
> So it does
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #5)
> what do you mean? when a statement is changed, it may generate a different
> range than it did before,
No, that would be a bug. If some IL changes need to ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112842
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105616
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #5 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Bug ID: 112848
Summary: [14 regression] ICE compiling
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-16.c after
r14-6114-gde0ab339a79535
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Of course it fails with r14-6114 as that is the source. Doh! I was looking at
pr112827.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #5)
> > what do you mean? when a statement is changed, it may generate a different
> > range than it did before,
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #6 from Chris Elrod ---
Hongtao Liu, I do think that one should ideally be able to get optimal codegen
when using 512-bit builtin vectors or vector intrinsics, without needing to set
`-mprefer-vector-width=512` (and, currently, also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, refining a range should be ok and I thought one would just flush caches
somewheres, so that next time it can be computed in more detail.
But, some local changes could be just temporary state until more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
--- Comment #9 from Andrei Elovikov ---
Created attachment 56789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56789&action=edit
Another reproducer, now using short instead of int
Once the fix is ready, please verify the "uint16_t" versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112821
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112781
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13?/14 regression] ICE in |[13/14 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112801
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111972
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:886f256ce3be4aa85f30af88558f0dfcb8003300
commit r14-6126-g886f256ce3be4aa85f30af88558f0dfcb8003300
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112813
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 56790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56790&action=edit
auxially patch to avid the trap
refining a range is fine... the only issue we are really running into here
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
commit r14-6129-g1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm. I will have a look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
commit r14-6129-g1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112854
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
I have noticed in full coverage testing.
It's mask bit field related issue again.
Robin could you take a look at it ?
I think you are the better one than me to take care of it.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
Bisected to
commit 97ddebb6b4f6b132b0a8072b26d030077b418963
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Thu Nov 23 18:55:03 2023 +0800
RISC-V: Refine some codes of riscv-v.cc[NFC]
This patch is NFC patch to refin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112851
Bug ID: 112851
Summary: [14 Regression] RISCV ICE: vsetvl pass: in
partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3187 on rv32gcv_zvl256b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 70819, which changed state.
Bug 70819 Summary: constexpr error location wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70819
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112707
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112851
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm. I will take a look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112809
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 56791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56791&action=edit
a simpler testcase using only two variables
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O testcase.c
during GIMPLE pass: bitintl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112781
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112599
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56701|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Currently bisecting.
The issue happens at an indexed load insn:
=> 0x6f656 :vluxei64.v v2,(a3),v2
The src reg v2 is different in good vs. failing case
bad case
--
info reg v2
b =
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
