[Bug libstdc++/107801] Building cross compiler for H8 family fails in libstdc++ (c++17/memory_resource.cc)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- Thanks, that's very helpful.

[Bug tree-optimization/101805] Max -> bool0 | bool1 Min -> a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note improvements to evrp does change the IR for -O2 for the C++ front-end.

[Bug tree-optimization/88916] [x86] suboptimal code generated for integer comparisons joined with boolean operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/88916] [x86] suboptimal code generated for integer comparisons joined with boolean operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||13.0 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/47579] STL size() == 0 does unnecessary shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47579 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Severity|normal

[Bug libstdc++/107801] Building cross compiler for H8 family fails in libstdc++ (c++17/memory_resource.cc)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801 --- Comment #9 from Jan Dubiec --- I think I have found why the static assertion fails as mentioned in my previous comment. Surprisingly, for H8/300H, H8/S and H8/SX in normal mode 32-bit integers and floats are aligned on 4-byte boundaries.

[PATCH] rtl: add predicates for addition, subtraction & multiplication

This is my first contribution to GCC :) one of the beginner projects suggested on the website was to add and use RTL type predicates. I added predicates for addition, subtraction and multiplication. I also went through and used them in the code. I did not add tests because I'm not

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] gcc parameter -mcrtdll= for choosing Windows C RunTime DLL library

what you want is basically a ucrt multilib. However, neither glibc provides the same toggle too. i do not see a good reason for your request. Get Outlook for Android From: Pali Rohár Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2022 2:09:09 PM To: LIU

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libstdc++/107885] H8/300: libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc fix shift-count-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107885 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug demangler/107884] H8/300: cp-demangle.c fix warning related demangle.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107884 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The patch does not work as you cannot pack bit options like this. There needs to be some better way of doing this.

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-11-27 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/107885] New: H8/300: libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc fix shift-count-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107885 Bug ID: 107885 Summary: H8/300: libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc fix shift-count-overflow warning Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/107884] New: H8/300: cp-demangle.c fix warning related demangle.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107884 Bug ID: 107884 Summary: H8/300: cp-demangle.c fix warning related demangle.h Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

gcc-12-20221126 is now available

Snapshot gcc-12-20221126 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20221126/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

[Bug tree-optimization/97832] AoSoA complex caxpy-like loops: AVX2+FMA -Ofast 7 times slower than -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832 --- Comment #22 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #21) > (In reply to Michael_S from comment #19) > > > Also note that 'vfnmadd231pd 32(%rdx,%rax), %ymm3, %ymm0' would be > > > 'unlaminated' (turned to 2 uops before

[Bug libstdc++/107801] Building cross compiler for H8 family fails in libstdc++ (c++17/memory_resource.cc)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uaa at mx5 dot nisiq.net --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/107883] c++17/memory_resource.cc build error for H8/300 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107883 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug libstdc++/107883] New: c++17/memory_resource.cc build error for H8/300 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107883 Bug ID: 107883 Summary: c++17/memory_resource.cc build error for H8/300 target Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/107819] ICE in gfc_check_argument_var_dependency, at fortran/dependency.cc:978

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107819 --- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #11) > Update: Steve Lionel thinks that no temporary is necessary, and testcase > z1.f90 > is non-conforming: > >

[Bug fortran/107819] ICE in gfc_check_argument_var_dependency, at fortran/dependency.cc:978

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107819 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Update: Steve Lionel thinks that no temporary is necessary, and testcase z1.f90 is non-conforming:

[Bug tree-optimization/107137] (unsigned)-(int)(bool_var) should be optimized to -(unsigned)bool_var

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/94617] Simple if condition not optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-11-26 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/38126] suboptimal code for (a && b || !a && !b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64 Component|middle-end

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #53970|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 53970 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53970=edit patch which handles some parts of the xor in tree-ssa-reassoc.cc This is the patch which I was talking about which

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/97832] AoSoA complex caxpy-like loops: AVX2+FMA -Ofast 7 times slower than -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832 --- Comment #21 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Michael_S from comment #19) > > Also note that 'vfnmadd231pd 32(%rdx,%rax), %ymm3, %ymm0' would be > > 'unlaminated' (turned to 2 uops before renaming), so selecting independent > > IVs for

[Bug analyzer/107882] New: [13 Regression] ICE in get_last_bit_offset, at analyzer/store.h:255

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107882 Bug ID: 107882 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_last_bit_offset, at analyzer/store.h:255 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] gcc parameter -mcrtdll= for choosing Windows C RunTime DLL library

On Monday 21 November 2022 13:21:53 LIU Hao wrote: > 在 2022/11/20 23:06, Pali Rohár 写道: > > Thank you for explaining more details. My simple patch takes this in > > care and defines also __MSVCRT_VERSION__ to the correct value based on > > -mcrtdll parameter. > > Apologies for reading your

[Bug middle-end/79045] bool expanded as 2 jumps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79045 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

Re: Problems when building NT kernel drivers with GCC / LD

On Monday 21 November 2022 08:24:36 Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.11.2022 14:10, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Saturday 05 November 2022 02:26:52 Pali Rohár wrote: > >> On Saturday 05 November 2022 01:57:49 Pali Rohár wrote: > >>> On Monday 31 October 2022 10:55:59 Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.10.2022

[Bug tree-optimization/98966] Failure to optimize conditional or with 1 based on boolean condition to direct or

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98966 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/98966] Failure to optimize conditional or with 1 based on boolean condition to direct or

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98966 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: -fanalyzer: Questions on C vs CPP + use of GCC attr's like malloc()/access()

On Sat, 2022-11-26 at 17:47 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 15:48 Gavin Ray, wrote: > > > I was using if (fd != -1) and was still getting the warning which > > confused > > me > > My suggestion was maybe to add the exact condition the fd analyzer > > is > > looking for to

[Bug tree-optimization/97832] AoSoA complex caxpy-like loops: AVX2+FMA -Ofast 7 times slower than -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832 --- Comment #20 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17) > (In reply to Michael_S from comment #16) > > On unrelated note, why loop overhead uses so many instructions? > > Assuming that I am as misguided as gcc about

[Bug tree-optimization/97832] AoSoA complex caxpy-like loops: AVX2+FMA -Ofast 7 times slower than -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832 --- Comment #19 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #18) > The apparent 'bias' is introduced by instruction scheduling: haifa-sched > lifts a +64 increment over memory accesses, transforming +0 and +32 > displacements

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] New: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Bug ID: 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b) Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity:

Re: Can't build Ada

> On 26 Nov 2022, at 18:06, Paul Koning wrote: > > > >> On Nov 26, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Arnaud Charlet via Gcc wrote: >> >> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: GNAT In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Arnaud Charlet via Gcc wrote: > > >>> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: >>> >>> GNAT >>> In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compiler >>> (GCC version 5.1 or later). >>> >>> so, if 5.1

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/91882] boolean XOR tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] New: bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Bug ID: 107880 Summary: bool tautology missed optimisation Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 11:52 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > >> On 26 Nov 2022, at 16:42, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> >> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: GNAT In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT

[Bug tree-optimization/103356] bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/91882] boolean XOR tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882 Bug 91882 depends on bug 103356, which changed state. Bug 103356 Summary: bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/103356] bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9378e3cc390f9bcc310ce206c6773a817aff2ca commit r13-4311-gf9378e3cc390f9bcc310ce206c6773a817aff2ca Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/103356 Add missing (~a) == b folding for _Bool

> Am 26.11.2022 um 17:42 schrieb apinski--- via Gcc-patches > : > > From: Andrew Pinski > > The following makes sure to fold (~a) == b to a ^ b for truth > values. > > OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions. Ok. Richard > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > >

[Bug c++/107875] Deduction for class template specialization types seems to be broken with init-declarator-list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107875 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

Re: -fanalyzer: Questions on C vs CPP + use of GCC attr's like malloc()/access()

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 15:48 Gavin Ray, wrote: > I was using if (fd != -1) and was still getting the warning which confused > me > My suggestion was maybe to add the exact condition the fd analyzer is > looking for to the warning so that folks know how to fix it/trigger > its 'true' branch. > >

[Bug tree-optimization/107876] [13 Regression] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.cc:1184 (error: dominator of 4 should be 14, not 16)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/107876] [13 Regression] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.cc:1184 (error: dominator of 4 should be 14, not 16)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug tree-optimization/91882] boolean XOR tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Note comment #1 is not done after the patch for PR103356 .

[Bug tree-optimization/91882] boolean XOR tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||103356 --- Comment #6 from Andrew

[Bug target/107878] Incomplete documentation for H8/300

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878 --- Comment #2 from Jan Dubiec --- One more thing – the documentation on the webpage states that -mn "must be used either with -mh or -ms". It is true for old compilers (e.g. for gcc 4.7 which I still use) but does not seem to be true for new

[Bug tree-optimization/107879] [13 Regression] ffmpeg-4 test suite fails on FPU arithmetics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at redhat dot com ---

Re: Can't build Ada

> On 26 Nov 2022, at 16:42, Arnaud Charlet wrote: > > >>> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: >>> >>> GNAT >>> In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compiler >>> (GCC version 5.1 or later). >>> >>> so, if 5.1 is not

[Bug tree-optimization/101706] bool0^bool1^1 -> bool0 == bool1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101706 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- r13-1779-g375668e0508fbe

[Bug tree-optimization/103356] bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note for: bool f(bool a, bool b) { b = !b; return a!=b; } We do the correct thing since r13-1779-g375668e0508fbe.

Re: Can't build Ada

>> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: >> >> GNAT >> In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compiler >> (GCC version 5.1 or later). >> >> so, if 5.1 is not working, then perhaps a PR is in order. > > I will do that, if the

[PATCH] tree-optimization/103356 Add missing (~a) == b folding for _Bool

From: Andrew Pinski The following makes sure to fold (~a) == b to a ^ b for truth values. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions. Thanks, Andrew Pinski PR 103356 gcc/ChangeLog: * match.pd: ((~a) == b -> a ^ b): New pattern.

[Bug tree-optimization/107879] [13 Regression] ffmpeg-4 test suite fails on FPU arithmetics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/99576] [coroutines] destructor of a temporary called too early within co_await expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576 --- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Adrian Perl from comment #7) Again, thanks for working on this. > Bootstrapping was successfull and the tests are currently running. Some of > the tests have failed, but they don't seem to be

[Bug c++/99576] [coroutines] destructor of a temporary called too early within co_await expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576 --- Comment #7 from Adrian Perl --- Bootstrapping was successfull and the tests are currently running. Some of the tests have failed, but they don't seem to be related to coroutines. Should I test twice, with and without the patch, in order to

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I am part way through the exercise on both macOS 11 (X86) and 12 (Arm64). > > ** However, I am using gcc-7.5 as the bootstrap compiler, not gcc-5.1. I'm not using 5.1 -- I only quoted that version number because the

[Bug middle-end/107879] [13 Regression] ffmpeg-4 test suite fails on FPU arithmetics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: GNU = Junkware

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 4:20 AM, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > No, I'm not trolling, just venting here for a moment. So sick of garbage ass, > crusty junkware that's always a battle to the death to accomplish anything. I don't know who you are or why you feel a need to spew obscenities on the GCC

[Bug c++/101733] simple-requirement prefixed with typename interpreted as type-requirement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101733 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug target/107878] Incomplete documentation for H8/300

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|other |target Last reconfirmed|

Re: Can't build Ada

Hi Paul, > On 26 Nov 2022, at 15:48, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:46 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: >> >>> On 25 Nov 2022, at 20:13, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:08 PM Paul Koning wrote: > On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/100366] [11/12/13 Regression] spurious warning - std::vector::clear followed by std::vector::insert(vec.end(), ...) with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366 Kyle Schwarz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeranoe at gmail dot com --- Comment

Re: -fanalyzer: Questions on C vs CPP + use of GCC attr's like malloc()/access()

I was using if (fd != -1) and was still getting the warning which confused me My suggestion was maybe to add the exact condition the fd analyzer is looking for to the warning so that folks know how to fix it/trigger its 'true' branch. e.g. instead of: "fd may not be valid" Something like this,

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:46 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi Paul, > >> On 25 Nov 2022, at 20:13, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:08 PM Paul Koning wrote: >>> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM

[Bug middle-end/107879] New: [13 Regression] ffmpeg-4 test suite fails on FPU arithmetics

/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 13.0.0 20221126 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug other/107878] New: Incomplete documentation for H8/300

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878 Bug ID: 107878 Summary: Incomplete documentation for H8/300 Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug libstdc++/107871] _Iter_sink:: _M_overflow missing some difference type casting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Maybe you could legally do: using difference_type = iterator_t>; but maybe just don't do that. If things break when you do dumb things, don't do those things.

[Bug libstdc++/107871] _Iter_sink:: _M_overflow missing some difference type casting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- No. They are only allowed to be implementation-defined types, not program-defined types. I can add the casts to make this work, but I don't think it's a real problem that can occur in valid programs.

Re: GNU = Junkware

On Sat, 2022-11-26 at 03:20 -0600, Dave Blanchard wrote: > GNU GCC/GLIBC IS THE MOST PAINFUL PIECE OF SHIT FUCKING SOFTWARE ON > THE PLANET TO BOOTSTRAP. Seems like a good time to remember the old adage, if you think everyone else is the asshole then you should consider that it's really you who's

Re: -fanalyzer: Questions on C vs CPP + use of GCC attr's like malloc()/access()

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, 18:55 Gavin Ray via Gcc, wrote: > > On a related note, the "fd" analyzers warn: "fd may not be valid" but don't > clarify what "valid" means. > A valid file descriptor is one that was returned by the C library and refers to an open file. That's not something GCC defines.

[Bug jit/107877] New: segfault in libgccjit when using asse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107877 Bug ID: 107877 Summary: segfault in libgccjit when using asse Product: gcc Version: 11.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug libstdc++/107871] _Iter_sink:: _M_overflow missing some difference type casting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871 --- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 --- This is just an example. So, are users not allowed to define integer-like class types?

Re: GNU = Junkware

Cool story bro On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 09:20 Dave Blanchard, wrote: > No, I'm not trolling, just venting here for a moment. So sick of garbage > ass, crusty junkware that's always a battle to the death to accomplish > anything. > > I really understand where Liu Hao was coming from yesterday when

GNU = Junkware

No, I'm not trolling, just venting here for a moment. So sick of garbage ass, crusty junkware that's always a battle to the death to accomplish anything. I really understand where Liu Hao was coming from yesterday when he was in here raging against the AT assembler. I could sense the bitterness

Re: [PATCH 19/56] Revert "Move void_list_node init to common code". (8ff2a92a0450243e52d3299a13b30f208bafa7e0)

> What happens if you remove end_params_node from the Java front-end and > replace it with void_list_node? Sadly, nothing.

Re: [PATCH 16/56] gcc: Re-add TYPE_METHODS.

> No. Java was removed to reduce the maintenance burden, you can't just > reintroduce the burden and say "hey, I don't want to pay for the burden > so you please do it". There were two sentences there. You appear to only have read the first one. I just took on 6 years of that maintenance burden

[Bug tree-optimization/107876] New: [13 Regression] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.cc:1184 (error: dominator of 4 should be 14, not 16)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876 Bug ID: 107876 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.cc:1184 (error: dominator of 4 should be 14, not 16) Product: gcc Version: 13.0