https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117650
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mathias Stearn from comment #0)
> https://godbolt.org/z/svjPzrf5z Shows the impact on codegen by making
> __GLIBCXX_NORETURN imply cold in addition to noreturn. This seemed like the
> easiest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100589
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ing.russomauro at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
Bug ID: 117792
Summary: ICE in tsubst_template_args
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
URL: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6058
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117772
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Oh I see 14.2.1, it is fixed on trunk, gfortran 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117642
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 59709
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59709&action=edit
gcc15-pr117642.patch
Untested patch to just emit a call to (non-existent in libatomic) function.
Up to the use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117787
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117783
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
f is unused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gitlab.kitware.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
That means this is considered to be valid C code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Furthermore, replacing the line
write(*,*) 'line 4:',array(:, sort_2(i(1:2)) )
by an expression with explicit parentheses around the array argument
write(*,*) 'line 4:',(array(:, sort_2(i(1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The correct way of fixing this is doing the following:
```
char some_unavailable_symbol();
char (*f)() __attribute__((used));
int main() {
f = some_unavailable_symbol;
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102610
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
Bug ID: 117795
Summary: fstack-limit is not working on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #3 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59715&action=edit
result without stack limit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #1 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59713&action=edit
result with -fstack-limit-register=r10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59714&action=edit
result with -fstack-limit-symbol=mct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106256
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
[...]
>
> Checking on godbolt.org:
>
> #include
> void test ()
> {
> std::cout >> 42;
> }
>
> we currently spew dozens of lines of diagnostics.
For referen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117794
Bug ID: 117794
Summary: [15 Regression] build failure in 31bit multilib on
s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
Bug ID: 117796
Summary: Accepting undefined symbols with -flto -O0
-ftoplevel-reorder -fipa-reference-addressable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-w64-mingw32 |
Known to fail|10.2.0, 10.3.0, 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further data points:
- introducing a temporary array for the result, e.g.
integer :: aux_array(4)
and using it as
aux_array = array(:, sort_2(i(1:2)) )
write(*,*) 'line 5:',aux_array
ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106285
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117751
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44e71c84f0795c1f6e7d40f5a3eb66e9835244c2
commit r15-5709-g44e71c84f0795c1f6e7d40f5a3eb66e9835244c2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117725
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>tells to linker via plugin that some_unavailable_symbol() is actually defined
>somewhere.
Actually that is not is going on. f instead is becoming local and then since it
is only written to is being remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #6)
> That means this is considered to be valid C code?
I just checked the newest version of ncurses and it is doing:
```
for ac_func in \
...
select \
...
/* We use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106256
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
For reference, trunk with -std=c++20:
https://godbolt.org/z/3q6b9dc6a
(output as per comment #0).
With my patches for PR other/116253, and with
-fdiagnostics-set-output=text:experimental-nesting=yes -std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Starke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #6)
> > That means this is considered to be valid C code?
> So you are using too old ncurses.
Thank you for the research
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #8)
> Thank you for the research.
> I just wanted to have a confirmation that the code in my original message is
> indeed considered to be valid C code.
illformed wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2db825f857da195e93fd8e4ac5228311fd37775
commit r15-5703-ge2db825f857da195e93fd8e4ac5228311fd37775
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
private
class(*), allocatable :: value(:,:)
end type
contains
function bar(this) result(uptr)
class(any_matrix), target, intent(in) :: this
class(*), pointer :: uptr(:,:)
uptr => this%value
end function
end module
Here's the traceback:
$ gfortran -c gfortran-2024
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117650
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I'm less sure about the libc functions. Glibc doesn't mark them as cold.
commit e3b0b3484cac61f9eae373751ac6eaf816a2c9c3
Author: Noah Goldstein
Date: Mon Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117650
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, Sam. I should have checked in git, not my older /usr/include/stdlib.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117650
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could add _GLIBCXX_NORETURN_COLD for the cases where we want both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117788
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the paper that simple? I thought it says that the array to pointer
conversions no longer happen unless the other operand is a pointer. Doesn't
that affect overloaded operators as well?
I mean say
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94370
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93746
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #8 from David Malcol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 80760, which changed state.
Bug 80760 Summary: Suggested clarification of an error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116378
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a809d4196577bb9f0c18d6f569acade6d1541f9
commit r14-10989-g5a809d4196577bb9f0c18d6f569acade6d1541f9
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Overflow is possible though. If you call it with max = (-1ull / 4 + 2) then the
alloca length will be 4. If (from_end - from) requires more than 4 wide
characters, we'll overflow the alloca buffer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117642
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
__sync_lock_test_and_set on __int128 (and similarly for both builtins on long
long with -m32 -march=i486) results in a __sync_lock_test_and_set_16 (resp. _8)
call which isn't implemented anywhere.
I'm not aw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115521
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #8)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> > PR117105 exhibits the same underlying probem with much smaller testcase.
>
> I started to work on these 2 PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117206
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117788
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eff7e72815ada5c70c974d42f6a419e29a03eb27
commit r15-5701-geff7e72815ada5c70c974d42f6a419e29a03eb27
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94370
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5134bad11b9a71f869abbb7f3d37b669c6ba138b
commit r15-5700-g5134bad11b9a71f869abbb7f3d37b669c6ba138b
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117793
Bug ID: 117793
Summary: missed copy propagation across memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116181
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eed230db42b43806a18a6a13b92657f9665367d3
commit r14-10988-geed230db42b43806a18a6a13b92657f9665367d3
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #0)
> From arm.c:
>
> error ("%s incompatible with %<-mword-relocations%>", flag);
>
> The first %s is also a command line option and thus should be %qs.
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #0)
> The problem appears to be that std::codecvt< wchar_t, char, std::mbstate_t
> >::do_length() accesses characters outside the [s, s + max_size) range,
I'm pretty sur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e236e9edbe78f2be5224a0f188ae3bb74d6b3c1b
commit r13-9217-ge236e9edbe78f2be5224a0f188ae3bb74d6b3c1b
Author: Arsen ArsenoviÄ
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2897bfe8f9efdf58a61e955b51821cc49d2a9cfc
commit r12-10833-g2897bfe8f9efdf58a61e955b51821cc49d2a9cfc
Author: Arsen ArsenoviÄ
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29c9213c3759f7ba24cdd498a5bc379cb9d16e5e
commit r14-10991-g29c9213c3759f7ba24cdd498a5bc379cb9d16e5e
Author: Arsen ArsenoviÄ
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Backported after discussion on IRC with dkm and it got acked by Eric. Thank you
all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.1, 15.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> Overflow is possible though. If you call it with max = (-1ull / 4 + 2) then
> the alloca length will be 4. If (from_end - from) requires more than 4 wide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93746
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08bb92d642757f1d4374b947f45f871cc04b8c65
commit r15-5698-g08bb92d642757f1d4374b947f45f871cc04b8c65
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67458ea13895bae3965274e7f03701fb14f8b1e6
commit r15-5699-g67458ea13895bae3965274e7f03701fb14f8b1e6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in tsubst_template_args |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117802
Bug ID: 117802
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in fold_convert_loc (fold-const.cc:2626)
with __builtin_iseqsig() on _BitInt()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> Created attachment 59711 [details]
> Fix for this PR
Hi Juergen,
Are you in a position to check this patch? I am submitting to the list in a few
minutes but would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 59711 [details]
> > Fix for this PR
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Are you in a position to check this patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da1305a9fee3b2efbb4702bb2d9b2f740d2e538a
commit r14-10993-gda1305a9fee3b2efbb4702bb2d9b2f740d2e538a
Author: Paul Thomas
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d81d6b2f9b72a41f23b07214d88cfcb176a
commit r13-9219-g8d81d6b2f9b72a41f23b07214d88cfcb176a
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ae871b71512f77cc6857bf0ecbf80dd1253e18c
commit r12-10835-g2ae871b71512f77cc6857bf0ecbf80dd1253e18c
Author: Paul Thomas
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80331
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think with my patch to basic_string we should have at least arrived to
something comparable with clang.
With -O2 it is optimized away,
with -O2 -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 I get:
int sain ()
{
struct alloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115438
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> This might in the end be fallout of different sinking?!
>
> One difference wrt SLP vs. non-SLP is that with SLP we are taking the
> initial value as the initial value with SLP while with non-SLP we
> ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> int i;
>
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> __builtin_prefetch (&i, 2, 0);
> }
>
> ICEs as well since that revision, and I think it actually ICEs on many
> targets as w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117799
Bug ID: 117799
Summary: __builtin_memcmp not optimized for size
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 f
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
