https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f36aabfe81aa168da11229158faf70b68b9dfd7
commit r16-2586-g1f36aabfe81aa168da11229158faf70b68b9dfd7
Author: Mikael Pettersson
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the output of `~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -v`?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||43745
--- Comment #27 from Georg-Joh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121277
Bug ID: 121277
Summary: [avr] Wrong code for (const __flashx char*) NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117971
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
One simple issue is we don't optimize something like this:
```
struct a
{
int tt;
int t[1023];
};
void g(struct a *b)
{
struct a c = {};
c.tt = 2;
*b = c;
}
```
After I finish up my current set o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121133
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>__extension__ 1LL
Is recorded as part of PR 121132 and PR 71003 really. PR 121132 is what got me
trying `long long` .
gcc/results/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/dcb/gcc/results.20250728/libexec/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/16.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../trunk/configure --prefix=/home/dcb/gcc/results.20250728
--disable-multilib --disable-werror --with-pkgversion=bdff4d7a8c0a3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121278
Bug ID: 121278
Summary: comparison of iterators does not compile for
containers of std::expected or std::function that
returns an std::expected
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention this fails at -O1 and -Os.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121279
Bug ID: 121279
Summary: [14/15/16 Regression] wrong code due to load of a bool
from an union being pulled out of loop
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121198
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
During constraint processing we have
7: {r45:SI=asm_operands;clobber cc:CC;}
REG_DEAD r47:HI
REG_UNUSED cc:CC
Alt 0: (0) ={r22} (1) {r22}
Final costs after insn 7 (freq=10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119714
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jacob.statnekov at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|aarch64-sve |
Target|arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61986&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(insn 27 26 28 5 (set (reg:HF 114 [ _10 ])
(if_then_else:HF (lt (reg:CCFPE 80 cc)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(reg:HF 100 [ iftmp.0_16 ])
(reg:HF 97 [ _9 ]))) -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120778
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61987
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61987&action=edit
gcc16-pr120778-if-comma.patch
Untested patch for that part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119106
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8463dac405552ff8bce2355964d62e70f00eb80
commit r15-10078-ge8463dac405552ff8bce2355964d62e70f00eb80
Author: Andre Vehr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119106
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121280
Bug ID: 121280
Summary: [15/16 Regression] False positive array-bounds warning
with O3 and std::vector.back() of a local vector copy
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is another related testcase:
```
using V [[gnu::vector_size(16)]] = int;
auto f(__int128 *x)
{
__int128 t = *x;
asm("":"+x"(t));
return (V)t;
}
```
Where GCC 13.4.0 was producing good code while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121245
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkaminsk at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Minor correction: Of course the expected result of the second test is
vextracti32x4 xmm0, zmm0, 1
ret
(i.e. assignment to xmm*0* instead of xmm2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121061
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121208
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5760ddbce26ff9c5c8851b6b2089ad65981d5078
commit r16-2589-g5760ddbce26ff9c5c8851b6b2089ad65981d5078
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jul 24 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86dc3b61c37946f1467466303ed29a143a952f35
commit r16-2588-g86dc3b61c37946f1467466303ed29a143a952f35
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121236
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a51bf9e10182cf7ac858db0ea6c5cb11b4f12377
commit r16-2590-ga51bf9e10182cf7ac858db0ea6c5cb11b4f12377
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121268
Bug ID: 121268
Summary: RISC-V: Possible optimization when manipulating
rightmost bits with zbb enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
Better/more reduced testcase:
```
struct h {
int g;
constexpr h() : g(0) {}
};
struct H {
int p[6+8]{0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13};
h o{};
};
void q(H &r) { r = {}; }
```
But this looks like a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119742
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a433ecf4da6fadc5154fa9458bda57d8a2d8ba2
commit r16-2579-g5a433ecf4da6fadc5154fa9458bda57d8a2d8ba2
Author: Nathan Myers
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #26 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(Also note that I'll gladly provide the source code for the entire project if
that helps somebody.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119702
Avinash Jayakar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avinashd at linux dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121269
Bug ID: 121269
Summary: [16 Regression] gcc.target/i386/asm-hard-reg-{1,2}.c
ICEs with RTL checking
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121269
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121269
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120660
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou ---
We have submitted a solution for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690821.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
Given that heuristics really matter here, it'd be helpful if you could enforce
both a ratio when reducing and also a minimum size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121266
--- Comment #4 from Kang-Che Sung ---
Sounds like a microcode issue in processors, no?
I remember that `xor eax, eax`, a common pattern of setting eax value to 0,
doesn't create a dependency on eax as a special case during decode. It's a pity
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #14 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
It works with clang because the stdint.h installed by clang falls to "hosted"
mode only if there is an actual file to include:
#if __STDC_HOSTED__ && __has_include_next()
...
#include_next
#els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121199
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> It looks a bit like this was fixed in gcc-9.
>
> Based on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714#c19
> I suspect this is just a dup of that.
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Pengfei Li from comment #13)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690065.html
No issues reported with the two patches applied either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121266
--- Comment #2 from Kang-Che Sung ---
Perhaps I missed the context here. What "false dependency" did the instruction
produce?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #11 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
This is intended.
We first considered the target as a sort of embedded bare-metal target, so we
were always installing a full set of C standard headers. However, it turns out
BPF programmers will happi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jose E. Marchesi from comment #11)
I can follow this, but I don't understand what to actually do about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-15/changes.html doesn't mention it and Nick (who
himself helped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #25 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> But this looks like a trade off of text size vs data size.
>
> I still don't see the huge difference which you were originally seeing.
I specifically created a test case that was minimal and resu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
(or maybe the DTrace thing is a separate problem, though I can't help but feel
it's very related. even then, I need to know what to use to provide stdint.h.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121266
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So if we look at `orl $-1, %eax`. This will create a dependency on the
instruction that modified eax last.
This means there is an false dependency since the result does not really
depends on the previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121020
--- Comment #15 from Pengfei Li ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #14)
> (In reply to Pengfei Li from comment #13)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690065.html
>
> No issues reported with the two patches applied eit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26dc9aa285b53551c55d3d660bb6da21d59d7023
commit r16-2578-g26dc9aa285b53551c55d3d660bb6da21d59d7023
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15/16 regression]|[13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121238
--- Comment #7 from Omer Ozarslan ---
Hi. I could isolate this to around __parse_integer (__from_chars_alnum?) based
on above snippets.
Please also take a look at Bug 121254 Comment 4 which is likely related.
Removing the template from parse_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
--- Comment #3 from Frank Scheiner ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> Created attachment 61981 [details]
> correct nesting of namespaces and #if CHECKING_P blocks
>
> There are more source files affected. The attached patch w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121270
Bug ID: 121270
Summary: New diagnostic: -Wsizeof-array
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121159
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, in PR119483 I've only handled the case where the function is not declared
[[noreturn]] but is implicitly turned into [[noreturn]] because it is
determined to never return.
We need another one liner to m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
--- Comment #5 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
When I got error, I used simply:
~/src/gcc/configure --prefix=${HOME}/gcc/16 --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-libstdcxx-debug
Now I added --disable-werror, to move with build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121273
Bug ID: 121273
Summary: ice for
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/unpacked_cond_fmaxnm_1.c with
-O2
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strange.
--enable-werror-always should be passed only to stage2+ libcpp configure, not
to stage1 or build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
Bug ID: 121272
Summary: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu build failure whit
-Werror=maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121244
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121271
Bug ID: 121271
Summary: New dialect flag: -fconst-array-parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121275
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121276
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121212
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119100
--- Comment #14 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
I think the last patchset completes this vector-scalar FMA series - both
single-width and widening varieties are now handled. However, before closing
this PR, I will carry out a few additional checks o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121270
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
I'd be happy with it outside of -Wextra. That's fine by me, as long as it's
available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is how the system g++ was configured.
What configure arguments have you used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690836.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Oh, I may have disabled boostrap when configuring a build. I will double check,
and close issue if so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
--- Comment #3 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
After re-configuring I get the same failure on stage1. Details on g++:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/ppc64le-redhat-linux/11/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121238
--- Comment #8 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Thanks! That's very helpful. So here's a pretty minimal reduction from what
you've shown:
// format.hpp
inline void inc(const char*& __first) {
++__first;
}
template
bool parse_integer(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121133
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61984&action=edit
gcc16-pr121133.patch
The following patch handles the long long cases like the C FE, but I have no
idea what to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119702
--- Comment #3 from Jens Seifert ---
Problem seems to be fixed in 15.1:
lshift1(unsigned long long*):
lxv 33,0(3)
vspltisw 0,1
vsld 0,1,0
stxv 32,0(3)
blr
gcc 14.3:
lshift1(unsigned long long*):
lx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119577
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
> If we have to force the IV live due to early break it means the IV wasn't
> used inside the loop, so we're free to make a choice.
>
> So, mine unless you already did work here Robin?
I have only done some v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121093
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Just for bit more context, LlVM doesn't have an equivalent of debug markers and
compiles p3 as:
p3: # @p3
.Lfunc_begin0:
.file 0 "/home/jh" "e.c" md5 0x8a15ab558b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121093
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> in the end I'm not sure what's "wrong" here and why you think you are missing
p2 - p2 is not executed, you shouldn't get any profile on it.
Seems we kind of disagree on how "executed" is defined.
If you com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
Bug ID: 121274
Summary: xmm extraction from zmm vector emits unnecessary
vpextrq/vpinsrq sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121275
Bug ID: 121275
Summary: Extend _Countof() to work with array parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121093
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> > in the end I'm not sure what's "wrong" here and why you think you are
> > missing
> p2 - p2 is not executed, you shouldn't get any profile on it.
>
> Seems we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119577
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947, 115130
--- Comment #5 from Tam
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
