https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121097
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4932c59df387a505de69a5a1015a03caa4ccf08
commit r16-2314-gf4932c59df387a505de69a5a1015a03caa4ccf08
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #15 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
To reproduce my sizes:
~ % podman run -it -v /tmp:/tmp alpine:3.21 sh -c 'sed -i -e s/https/http/
/etc/apk/repositories && apk -q add gcc-avr && avr-g++ --version && avr-g++
-fno-exceptions -std=c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Colin.NAKACHE at cea dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #17 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Actually, my interestingness test is broken since cvise expects it to take its
argument in the current working directory...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121145
Bug ID: 121145
Summary: Unnecessary runtime error: non-associated procedure
pointer passed to optional argument
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
--- Comment #9 from federico ---
Confirmed working on gcc 15.1, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121061
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29d53f6213e0a1569aa8ca9db613b48df642986c
commit r16-2328-g29d53f6213e0a1569aa8ca9db613b48df642986c
Author: Luc Grosheintz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121126
--- Comment #5 from Robin Dapp ---
I'll have a look. I'm currently tied down with other things, so maybe next
week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before cunroll that first loop is
[local count: 8680598903]:
# __n_274 = PHI <__n_206(43), 0(39)>
# ivtmp_255 = PHI
__n_206 = __n_274 + 1;
ivtmp_374 = ivtmp_255 - 1;
if (ivtmp_374 != 0)
got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #27 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 7/17/25 08:04, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #7 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Or in other words, I believe my example is equivalent to implementation of
optional,
where we have:
union {
T val;
};
And then call:
new(static_cast(addressof(val))) T(...);
It is just version were T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-stdcheck |
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59db34888d289dae8fae2bcbf5e435be53da0edc
commit r14-11896-g59db34888d289dae8fae2bcbf5e435be53da0edc
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121126
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The following fails at -O2:
unsigned char a;
unsigned b;
int r[11];
static void __attribute__((noipa))
c(int e, unsigned s[][11][11])
{
for (int u = -(e ? 2000424973 : 0) - 2294542319; u < 7; u += 4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24)
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > So if FOO is a wrapper subroutine that calls MPI_I*, one needs to find all
> > of them in the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61885|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #16 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ah also I just realized it's cvise's CommentsPass that breaks the TU right away
and keeps it from being reduced further. Disabling this pass now makes cvise
do something. So hopefully, there'll be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.5
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117203
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e4c25e375a458d1ae79f0fe648f8bf992cbc72b
commit r15-9991-g7e4c25e375a458d1ae79f0fe648f8bf992cbc72b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119650
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e4c25e375a458d1ae79f0fe648f8bf992cbc72b
commit r15-9991-g7e4c25e375a458d1ae79f0fe648f8bf992cbc72b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120542
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to terryinzaghi from comment #0)
> ../gcc-15.1.0/configure \
> --prefix=/home/cu-lib/GCC15/gcc15-installed \
> --enable-languages=c,c++ \
> --enable-bootstrap \
> --enable-checking=relea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e6a220b18df8ef13dde7c19407f4341ff16f091
commit r13-9799-g7e6a220b18df8ef13dde7c19407f4341ff16f091
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:536ed87cfb3a1453730411f217fa119b87ffaf90
commit r13-9798-g536ed87cfb3a1453730411f217fa119b87ffaf90
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
The intent of the patch was to support
new (&union_.member) T
syntax like
union_.member = T()
for setting the active member, as in
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union#general-example-3
but adding the li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My bet is that before cunroll we didn't know that __n_206 is 9 and during
cunroll we completely unroll the loop that computes it and when processing the
next loop we use ranger to ask about __n_206 value, ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120924
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121146
Bug ID: 121146
Summary: memcpy does not recognize alignas
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #6 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
I believed that `_member` being active after new should directly fall from the
definition of active member in https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union#general-2:
> In a union, a non-static data member is active
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Hi, the original example works, but when I start to add library fluff, I get
the same error. I mean cases like:
// passing address to actual member
new(&arr) T[3];
new(std::addressof(arr)) T[3]; // Disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119692
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa143261bdf6db4334b3fcad7768b53e231f998e
commit r16-2323-gaa143261bdf6db4334b3fcad7768b53e231f998e
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120542
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dee5246d7883ed04e1e8c124887f19d5e908595f
commit r15-9989-gdee5246d7883ed04e1e8c124887f19d5e908595f
Author: Gaius Mulley
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121131
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct A { _BitInt(156) b : 135; };
static inline _BitInt(6)
foo (struct A *x)
{
return x[1].b;
}
_BitInt(6)
bar (void)
{
struct A a[] = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 };
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
Bug ID: 121147
Summary: ../.././gcc/c/c-decl.cc:6192:21: error:
‘ENABLE_OFFLOADING’ was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
What platform is this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120908
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d929cd27e66c7d9c519cbcd77f12e1d58e85689
commit r14-11895-g4d929cd27e66c7d9c519cbcd77f12e1d58e85689
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121126
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
That means previously the
/* FORNOW: we currently don't support the case that these phis
2029 are not used in the outerloop (unless it is double
reduction,
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 87097, which changed state.
Bug 87097 Summary: value-initialization of an array of more than 1 element not
treated as a constant initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87097
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87097
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121131
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r14-2224 added (admittedly before _BitInt support went in):
/* Integral bit-fields are left-justified on big-endian targets, so
we must arrange for native_encode_int to start at their
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121061
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df7beaccef31f19ee73f034eb98e0e47be008d8e
commit r16-2325-gdf7beaccef31f19ee73f034eb98e0e47be008d8e
Author: Luc Grosheintz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87097
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10846d82a895cbc95b7819a5c44cd0216bb21bf4
commit r15-9990-g10846d82a895cbc95b7819a5c44cd0216bb21bf4
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87097
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7dd08411bc3b4e8431174d036021ecf482e7d61
commit r14-11894-gd7dd08411bc3b4e8431174d036021ecf482e7d61
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87097
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b38382e36410a9a649b904a2d0a0abcb90f9c418
commit r16-2326-gb38382e36410a9a649b904a2d0a0abcb90f9c418
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121055
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=121061
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1eee8430794f790b6d364603685e70d83d8d42f5
commit r16-2327-g1eee8430794f790b6d364603685e70d83d8d42f5
Author: Luc Grosheintz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120920
--- Comment #3 from Dusan Stojkovic ---
Based on Jeff's review, I updated the patch:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/pr3pr08mb5738402789a50779af3ae0abbe...@pr3pr08mb5738.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com/
>> A possibility for improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120920
--- Comment #4 from Dusan Stojkovic ---
Created attachment 61898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61898&action=edit
A hack to always find the real bswap size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2954038c821d5f672db89938c4b6feedf29c30aa
commit r16-2329-g2954038c821d5f672db89938c4b6feedf29c30aa
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-stdcheck
--- Comment #26 from Tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That first loop corresponds to
struct __distance_fn final
{
template _Sent>
requires (!sized_sentinel_for<_Sent, _It>)
constexpr iter_difference_t<_It>
operator()[[nodiscard]](_It _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Regarding 1), I think the problem is that if there are automatic vars defined
in the expansion stmt body, there is no DECL_EXPR created for them.
The problem is start_decl doing:
6214 if (processing_tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120807
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95543c5d2fcb90e120d4291c06eba33f174986e4
commit r15-9987-g95543c5d2fcb90e120d4291c06eba33f174986e4
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120807
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
--- Comment #1 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
The full command that emits the warning for me:
```
/home/tkaminsk/build/gcc/16/./gcc/xg++ -shared-libgcc
-B/home/tkaminsk/build/gcc/16/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/home/tkaminsk/build/gcc/16/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121143
Bug ID: 121143
Summary: FP warning from -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120474
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46e41cf94fdf9ac22133da1fcd8e42ff3c3fb24c
commit r15-9988-g46e41cf94fdf9ac22133da1fcd8e42ff3c3fb24c
Author: Gaius Mulley
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82366
Karol Zwolak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karolzwolak7 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #11 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
So at last I have *something*. I'm not sure if it's at the core of the problem
though, but it does look fishy to my untrained eye.
Attached you find a translation unit a.ii that:
* produces a data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #8 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Created attachment 61892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61892&action=edit
unreduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #9 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
This test case was meant to be added to 120955
This is a very weird UI bug in Bugzilla. I tried uploading the attachment, it
complained it was too big, I pressed back or ok or something, added it in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #12 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Created attachment 61893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61893&action=edit
unreduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi "After changing a bug"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d626debcb3717f18bf2ee88f4281b109b13e1181
commit r16-2313-gd626debcb3717f18bf2ee88f4281b109b13e1181
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Tue Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
I should mention that it's key to use `avr-size -G` to get meaningful data
sizes for objects. The default Berkeley style gives very small data sizes for
objects. No clue why, and I can't find reaso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Note the fnspec would also affects scalars passed by reference, so depending on
how exactly the frontend infers it testcases that are "miscompiled" by
functions stowing away a reference to the passed objec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120996
Dhruv Chawla changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #11 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #10)
> (In reply to fiesh from comment #9)
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi "After changing a bug"
Ah thank you. What a bizarre default behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Bug ID: 121144
Summary: wrong code generated with -fPIC -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
A pragmatic solution might be to pattern-match (by name) some of the affected
APIs and exclude them from the fnspec processing that causes the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116586
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dhruvc at nvidia dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121141
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> A pragmatic solution might be to pattern-match (by name) some of the
> affected APIs and exclude them from the fnspec processing that causes the
> issue.
Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109380
Konstantin Kompan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||atomnik07 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94723
Debashish Ghosh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||debashish47 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18)
> Plus, ASYNCHRONOUS means that the variable can change even in
> the absence of a call, so
>
>CALL FOO (A)
>A = 2
>IF (A == 2) THEN
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> > A pragmatic solution might be to pattern-match (by name) some of the
> > affected APIs and exclud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Just to make sure I am getting it right. With avr-gcc v15.1 / trunk, I am
getting a data size of:
$ avr-size -G b-ii-15.o
text databss total filename
2688194
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
>
> --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #6 from terryinzaghi ---
Created attachment 61901
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61901&action=edit
config.status WHEN do ./configure --disable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #7 from terryinzaghi ---
Created attachment 61902
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61902&action=edit
config.log WHEN do ./configure --disable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121147
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to terryinzaghi from comment #5)
> Created attachment 61900 [details]
> auto-host.hWHEN do ./configure --disable-multilib
This looks correct has the defines as expected.
Do you have the full
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||false-positive
--- Comment #3 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120761
--- Comment #4 from Gaius Mulley ---
I've posted the patch to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687484.html
if someone can eyeball it and give it an lgtm I'll push it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121148
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We also have handwritten assembly versions which need to be checked by target
maintainers:
libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/cris/atomicity.h has three different assembly
implementations of __exchange_and add
I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71945
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The __atomic_fetch_add built-in on signed integers is required to wrap like
> unsigned integers without UB, but we should check that all our
> target-specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
