https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121010
Bug ID: 121010
Summary: Error on lambda in fold expression in lambda capturing
pack
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121011
Bug ID: 121011
Summary: Bad optimizations by GCC 15.0.1 from Fedora
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120996
Dhruv Chawla changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121012
Bug ID: 121012
Summary: Error on lambda with auto parameter as template
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
--- Comment #17 from TCH ---
Okay, GCC6 now compiles and the resulting compiler can compile too. So, this is
the right way to do:
untxz gcc-6.5.0.tar.xz
cd gcc-6.5.0
patch -p0 < ../gcc6_solaris10.patch
cd ..
mkdir gcc6
cd gcc6
export LD_LIBRARY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121009
Bug ID: 121009
Summary: [libgomp]fwrite return value ignored in
libgomp/error.c causes build failure with
-Werror=unused-result
Product: gcc
Version: 14.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121008
Bug ID: 121008
Summary: Error on 'this' inside noexcept specifier of lambda
capturing 'this' inside noexcept specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121009
--- Comment #2 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Glibc was fixed 13 years ago.
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11959
>
> So closing as won't fix.
Thank you, Andrew, for the quick clarification a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121011
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-09
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120996
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dhruv Chawla from comment #4)
> Also added https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154, which is a
> previous case where a similar issue occurred.
With almost exactly the same code even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error on lambda with auto |[16 Regression] Error on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120917
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #19)
> The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8abc2e66be72a34db8c3cc97e4fbd90b7abae61d
>
> commit r16-2065-g8abc2e66be72a34db8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eczbek.void at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118341
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118341
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||110339
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120997
Bug ID: 120997
Summary: std::span::subspan returns
initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119820
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110339
Bug 110339 depends on bug 120364, which changed state.
Bug 120364 Summary: std::bitset is missing hardened preconditions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120364
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120998
Bug ID: 120998
Summary: [16 regression] unable to bootstrap with cobol and
without --disable-werror
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120917
--- Comment #26 from Frank Heckenbach ---
(In reply to Frank Heckenbach from comment #24)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #23)
> >
> > Then yes, it does look like it should work; libstdc++ uses that 'requires
> > function call' patter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63164
Thomas de Bock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdebock at DRWUK dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107761
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7b8eb90abaeaaf4a51325e087cd43a4dac8d25a
commit r16-2098-gb7b8eb90abaeaaf4a51325e087cd43a4dac8d25a
Author: Luc Grosheintz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120993
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
powerpc64le is moving towards defaulting to ieee128 long double so this might
become mute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119739
Nathan Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119740
Nathan Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, hol...@applied-asynchrony.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
>
> --- Comment #37 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120916
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Patching create_gcov to account all of debug statements associated with a given
address instead of just the last one gets me:
test total:4350509 head:8642
1: 4484 // {
2: 4484 // for (
3: 4484
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120916
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 61818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61818&action=edit
create_gcov path
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120914
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kamiń
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117784
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c81447d969f27a8653ebb1a450372f0d25a2e628
commit r16-2108-gc81447d969f27a8653ebb1a450372f0d25a2e628
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117784
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As the commit message says, so far partially implemented. One can declare
structured bindings constexpr as long as the C++23-ish constant expression
handling allows that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 121001, which changed state.
Bug 121001 Summary: frange on float_var*0.f includes NaN even if float_var does
not include NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121001
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121000
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121000
--- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
with gcc -O1 -fdump-tree-all t.c, in a-t.c.112t.objsz1, we see the object size
is generated as _22:
sizetype _26(D);
_12 = &p_18->n;
_23 = MEM [(void *)_12];
_24 = MAX_EXPR <_23, 0>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93809
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93809
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d11ae1dd95a0296eeb5c14bfe3a5d4ec8873e3b
commit r16-2111-g7d11ae1dd95a0296eeb5c14bfe3a5d4ec8873e3b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83469
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d11ae1dd95a0296eeb5c14bfe3a5d4ec8873e3b
commit r16-2111-g7d11ae1dd95a0296eeb5c14bfe3a5d4ec8873e3b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83469
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120817
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ebeed53983dbcefcf7b950895c9d88c85342cf4
commit r15-9941-g0ebeed53983dbcefcf7b950895c9d88c85342cf4
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120817
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77066fec7ae3b57806c5d8fed9429c7db9ee446b
commit r15-9942-g77066fec7ae3b57806c5d8fed9429c7db9ee446b
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8599692a336b29851bdc5d8506a51d57521595c
commit r15-9940-gb8599692a336b29851bdc5d8506a51d57521595c
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120944
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c23368ed910a911e72af5decfc39bef11a9efac
commit r15-9939-g2c23368ed910a911e72af5decfc39bef11a9efac
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #39 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f1e4dd1f9354ea962113e066152d0a77209f732
commit r15-9944-g0f1e4dd1f9354ea962113e066152d0a77209f732
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c625bc9c7c294ef2851ae42d4a5b6cc899fecb5e
commit r15-9943-gc625bc9c7c294ef2851ae42d4a5b6cc899fecb5e
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118443
Bug 118443 depends on bug 118669, which changed state.
Bug 118669 Summary: Misaligned store after vectorization without using
misaligned type with SVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.1.1
Summary|[15 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 120927, which changed state.
Bug 120927 Summary: [15 Regression] 510.parest_r segfaults built with -Ofast
-march=znver4 --param vect-partial-vector-usage=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119920
--- Comment #9 from Alfie Richards ---
Confirmed this fixes my test case.
The optimization is fascinating, and looks really elegant. Thanks for sending
it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121004
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually LLVM transforms a*0.0f into copysign if it knows that a is finite.
That is:
```
float f0(float a)
{
if (__builtin_isnan(a) || __builtin_isinf(a))
__builtin_unreachable();
float t = a*0.f;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac2fb60a67d6d1de6446c25c5623b8a1389f4770
commit r16-2112-gac2fb60a67d6d1de6446c25c5623b8a1389f4770
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121003
Bug ID: 121003
Summary: Sometimes __builtin_unreachable is still there before
the vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121004
Bug ID: 121004
Summary: float_var*0.0f if we know a is either -0.0 or 0.0 can
be just done as copysign(0.0, a)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118681
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb412029f5cec52275d14956fe01473015a9ce0e
commit r16-2115-geb412029f5cec52275d14956fe01473015a9ce0e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120637
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1f05661fa6c8a6ea6f59ad365a84469100e425e
commit r16-2086-gd1f05661fa6c8a6ea6f59ad365a84469100e425e
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120637
--- Comment #9 from Andre Vehreschild ---
This is candidate for a backport to at least gcc-15. I therefore wait a week to
let it mature before backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61786|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980
--- Comment #6 from Krister Walfridsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Krister Walfridsson from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > And there are more problems. For example, how does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #11)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 61803 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Please try this.
>
> Tried applying this on top of r16-1644-gaba3b9d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121000
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #1)
> with gcc -O1 -fdump-tree-all t.c, in a-t.c.112t.objsz1, we see the object
> size is generated as _22:
>
> sizetype _26(D);
>
> _12 = &p_18->n;
> _23 = MEM [(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #16 from Filip Kastl ---
Ok, I'll try to extract a smaller testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #37 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36)
> Should be fixed on trunk. The issue is latent since forever, I'll pick this
> to most branches. I hope somebody can test on the very original Qt testcas
On 08/07/25 08:44 +, Žarko Asen wrote:
Hi I would like to report a critical issue with G++ 14.2.0, namely
assigning from a variable declared in the same line as assignment is
perfectly legal and compiles with G++; namely
const uint32_t x1 = x1 + 1; // Is legal even though, there is no x decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120922
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #5)
> Question, can I count on
>
> -march=rv64gcv_zvl1024b -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl -mrvv-max-lmul=m8
>
> always being available as a codegen option for RVV? or do I nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
benh at kernel dot crashing.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benh at kernel dot cras
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
--- Comment #21 from benh at kernel dot crashing.org ---
s/rwlock_1.ext/rwlock1_exe/ ... looks like my fingers refuse to type ".exe" ..
I wonder why :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120957
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] 6-9%|[16 Regression] 6% slowdown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120972
--- Comment #6 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> I see. I see annotating loops with pragmas as a more user-friendly way
> of getting there. What we have at our disposal in terms of pragmas
> is quite limiting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114714
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120461
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #12 from Filip Kastl ---
As I've commented in pr120957, I've also bisected 9% Zen3 -Ofast -march=native
slowdown to this commit. That slowdown can also be solved by applying the
patch hjl has provided.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #13 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #12)
> As I've commented in pr120957, I've also bisected 9% Zen3 -Ofast
> -march=native slowdown to this commit. That slowdown can also be solved by
> applying the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119100
--- Comment #11 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> So I don't mind these changes being tagged to pr119100. My only concern is
> how do we know when we're done on this bug?
The way I see it is, this bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120922
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Question, can I count on
-march=rv64gcv_zvl1024b -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl -mrvv-max-lmul=m8
always being available as a codegen option for RVV? or do I need some
require-effective-target checks?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67452737d8e6d2629104ac811eaf6ec8c1790614
commit r15-9935-g67452737d8e6d2629104ac811eaf6ec8c1790614
Author: Andre Vehr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:887ddb4d8c3ddd27c3a5cfd79f21dd52403c82fa
commit r15-9934-g887ddb4d8c3ddd27c3a5cfd79f21dd52403c82fa
Author: Andre Vehre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120982
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
That is, DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT and dr_aligned do not mix well for "over-aligned"
DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT.
The immediate issue might be best fixed by dropping the set_ptr_info_alignment
calls, but we are using th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120993
Bug ID: 120993
Summary: powerpc64le LDBL_NORM_MAX does not conform to C23
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120994
Bug ID: 120994
Summary: [C++26] P2897R7 aligned_accessor
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120990
--- Comment #6 from Rohan Suri ---
That makes sense, thanks Jonathan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120994
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120972
--- Comment #4 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Feng Xue from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > Yes, it's not possible to implement the standards restrict qualificatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #11 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Created attachment 61803 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this.
Tried applying this on top of r16-1644-gaba3b9d3a48a07.
With r16-1644-gaba3b9d3a48a07 ... 224s
With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120995
Bug ID: 120995
Summary: [RISC-V] ICE: unrecognizable insn
UNSPEC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP with rv64gc_zabha_zacas
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
Hi I would like to report a critical issue with G++ 14.2.0, namely
assigning from a variable declared in the same line as assignment is
perfectly legal and compiles with G++; namely
const uint32_t x1 = x1 + 1; // Is legal even though, there is no x declared
previously
regards,
Zarko Asen
ase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120642
--- Comment #2 from Jin Ma ---
> Which doesn't match because the vector_length_operand predicate rejects
> nonzero constants for XTHEADVECTOR.
>
> I think the right fix here is to just guard the transformation in AVL
> propagation like this:
>
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
