t/powerpc/ppc-fortran/ieee128-math.f90 -O (test for excess
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179459
# of unexpected failures97
# of unexpected successes 20
# of expected failures 1612
# of unsupported tests 4251
/home/g
== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes178440
# of unexpected failures128
# of unexpected successes 13
# of expected failures 1595
# of unsupported tests 5035
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [remotes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #8)
> Created attachment 58037 [details]
> Expand dump
>
> Dump attached. Insn 209 is the problematic one.
> The changing from _911 to 1078 happens in
failures 5241
# of unsupported tests 23193
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xg++ version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [master r14-10119-g1d238c8402] (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/example.c -O0 execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59ff81835fee22a9d4c9a481a4d1814583aae945
commit r14-10120-g59ff81835fee22a9d4c9a481a4d1814583aae945
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu Apr 25 08:08:24 2024 +0200
tree-optimization/114792 - order loops to unloops in CH
When we use unloop_loops we have to make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59ff81835fee22a9d4c9a481a4d1814583aae945
commit r14-10120-g59ff81835fee22a9d4c9a481a4d1814583aae945
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
When we use unloop_loops we have to make sure to have loops ordered
inner to outer as otherwise we can wreck inner loop structure where
unlooping relies on that being intact. The following re-sorts the
vector of to unloop loops after copy-header as that adds to the
vector in two places and the
nexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 901
# of unresolved testcases 28
# of unsupported tests 5261
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/builds/destdir/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/arm-eabi-gcc
version 14.0.1 20240425 (experimental) [master revision
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114853
Bug ID: 114853
Summary: Inefficient code with a bunch of bitwise checks
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:34:22PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> when looking at a package build issue with GCC 14, Michal Jireš noted a
> different behavior of pragma GCC Target. This snippet tries to describe
> the gist of the problem. I have left it in the C section even though it
> is not
Hello,
when looking at a package build issue with GCC 14, Michal Jireš noted a
different behavior of pragma GCC Target. This snippet tries to describe
the gist of the problem. I have left it in the C section even though it
is not really C specific, but could not think of a good name for a new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114852
Bug ID: 114852
Summary: jpegxl 10.0.1 is faster with clang18 then with gcc14
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
LGTM
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2024-04-25 19:23
To: gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; palmer; Kito Cheng; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; jeffreyalaw; Patrick
O'Neill
Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add testcase for PR114749.
Hi,
this adds a test case for PR114749.
Going to commit as obvious
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:43:46PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Then can_alias_cdtor would return false, because it ends with:
> >/* Don't use aliases for weak/linkonce definitions unless we can put both
> > symbols in the same COMDAT group. */
> >return (DECL_INTERFACE_KNOWN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94753
--- Comment #3 from r_new at rambler dot ru ---
Don't know gcc code, but
/* For C++11+ __cpp_constexpr and __cpp_static_assert should be defined. */
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
is not true.
All standard predefined macros listed in chapter "16.8
Regressions on master at commit r14-10117 vs commit r14-10115 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/benign_race.C -O2 execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/default_options.C -O0 execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/fd_close_norace2.C -O2 execution test
FAIL:
New failures:
New passes:
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file
of unsupported tests 4249
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD r14-10118-gaf7d981ba40] (GCC)
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2.f90
Hi,
On 2024-04-24 17:55, Richard Ball wrote:
This patch makes the following changes:
1) When calling a secure function from non-secure code then any arguments
smaller than 32-bits that are passed in registers are zero- or
sign-extended.
2) After a non-secure function returns into secure
Hi!
While the C23 standard isn't officially release yet,
in 2011 we've changed __STDC_VERSION__ value for C11 already
in the month in which the new __STDC_VERSION__ value has been
finalized, so we want to change this now or wait
until we implement all the C23 features?
Note, seems Clang up to 17
t/powerpc/ppc-fortran/ieee128-math.f90 -O (test for excess
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179459
# of unexpected failures97
# of unexpected successes 20
# of expected failures 1612
# of unsupported tests 4251
/home/g
failures 5241
# of unsupported tests 23193
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xg++ version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [master r14-10118-gaf7d981ba4] (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/example.c -O0 execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114467
thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
Hi,
this adds a test case for PR114749.
Going to commit as obvious unless somebody complains.
Regards
Robin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/114749
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/pr114749.c: New test.
---
.../gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/pr114749.c | 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #9 from Matt Thompson ---
Jerry,
I tried your patch, but it didn't seem to help my reproducer.
Stock GCC13:
Number of Modules | Build Time
- | --
10 | 0.336674
20 |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:16:31PM +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> --- a/gcc/rust/parse/rust-parse.cc
> +++ b/gcc/rust/parse/rust-parse.cc
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ extract_module_path (const AST::AttrVec _attrs,
>// Source: rustc compiler
>//
>
Hi all,
while bisecting I recently ran into build errors like
In file included from /devel/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/tsystem.h:101,
from /devel/gcc/libgcc/libgcov.h:42,
from /devel/gcc/libgcc/libgcov-interface.c:26:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:931:6: error: wrong number of
Hello,
Attached is a patch for fixing build issues on *-w64-mingw32. Please check and
update at your leisure.
'gcc/system.h' contains a macro called `mkdir()` and there is no need to invoke `_mkdir()` within a
conditional block.
--
Best regards,
LIU Hao
diff --git
f expected failures 1550
# of unsupported tests 3992
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-13/gcc/xgcc version 13.2.1 20240425
[releases/gcc-13 r13-8646-ga9f174f01f] (GCC)
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Kulik ---
Eric and Rainer, thank you both very much for all that testing and the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
unix
=== libgo Summary ===
# of expected passes196
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_3/abe/builds/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc-gcc.git~master-stage2/./gcc/gccgo
version 14.0.1 20240425 (experimental) [master revision
gcc-14-10117
Motivated by a surprise of a colleague that with -m32,
no offload dumps were created; that's because mkoffload
does not process host binaries when the are 32bit (i.e. ilp32).
Internally, that done as follows: The host compiler passes to
'mkoffload' the used host ABI, i.e. -foffload-abi=ilp32 or
For the 20th anniversary of https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/sparc-abi.html, a new
calling convention incompatibility with the vendor compiler (and the ABI) has
been discovered in 64-bit mode, affecting small structures containing arrays
of floating-point components. The decision has been made to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
commit r14-10119-g1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
commit r14-10119-g1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Thu Apr 25 12:44:14 2024 +0200
Fix calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler
For the 20th anniversary of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
--- Comment #17 from Haojian Wu ---
> IIRC we didn't want to commit to an API for the built-in, and we also didn't
> have any motivating use cases for the it within libstdc++.
Thanks for the reply. Fair enough.
Committed, thanks Juzhe.
Pan
From: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 5:27 PM
To: Li, Pan2 ; gcc-patches
Cc: kito.cheng ; Robin Dapp ; Li,
Pan2 ; Kito.cheng
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Add test cases for insn does not satisfy its
constraints [PR114714]
LGTM. THANKS
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af7d981ba40f145256f6f6d3409451e8fa647f75
commit r14-10118-gaf7d981ba40f145256f6f6d3409451e8fa647f75
Author: Pan Li
Date: Thu Apr 25 15:04:02 2024 +0800
RISC-V: Add test cases for insn does not satisfy its constraints [PR114714]
We have one ICE when RVV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114714
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af7d981ba40f145256f6f6d3409451e8fa647f75
commit r14-10118-gaf7d981ba40f145256f6f6d3409451e8fa647f75
Author: Pan Li
Date: Thu Apr 25
On 24/04/2024 16:55, Richard Ball wrote:
> This patch makes the following changes:
>
> 1) When calling a secure function from non-secure code then any arguments
>smaller than 32-bits that are passed in registers are zero- or
> sign-extended.
> 2) After a non-secure function returns into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114851
Bug ID: 114851
Summary: Alternative to -Wmisexpect from LLVM in GCC
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114849
--- Comment #4 from Manjunath Bhavimani ---
We used same options for both toolchain version. Except linker option
-specs=nano.specs, this is not used for v10.3
Compiler Option:
-mcpu=cortex-m7
-mthumb
-mlittle-endian
-mfpu=fpv5-sp-d16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96866
--- Comment #3 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
While, I'm wondering if we could accept this code, and handle it as something
like:
(insn 5 4 6 (set (reg/f:DI 118)
(mem/u/c:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96866
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114850
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Pewterschmidt
---
Created attachment 58039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58039=edit
compressed file generated by g++ with -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114850
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Pewterschmidt
---
Created attachment 58038
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58038=edit
compressed file generated by g++ with -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114850
Bug ID: 114850
Summary: co_await a async function which result type is
std::unique_ptr<...> or shared_ptr in a initializer
list causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version:
s147360
# of unexpected failures38
# of unexpected successes 4
# of expected failures 916
# of unresolved testcases 2
# of unsupported tests 2772
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-11/gcc/xgcc version 11.4.1 20240425
[releases/gcc-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
>>> The sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu one will be running
LGTM. THANKS
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: pan2.li
Date: 2024-04-25 17:25
To: gcc-patches
CC: juzhe.zhong; kito.cheng; rdapp.gcc; Pan Li; Kito Cheng
Subject: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Add test cases for insn does not satisfy its
constraints [PR114714]
From: Pan Li
We have one ICE when RVV register
From: Pan Li
We have one ICE when RVV register overlap is enabled. We reverted this
feature as it is in stage 4 and there is no much time to figure a better
solution for this. Thus, for now add the related test cases which will
trigger ICE when register overlap enabled.
This will gate the RVV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114846
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
As https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843#c8, we may need some
similar handling like r14-6440-g4b421728289e6f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114846
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Just an FYI on other targets on my reduced testcase (I just quickly looked
> at the generated assembly to see if it worked or not):
>
> backends that seems to
scan-assembler-times padd 5
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-reduc-1.c scan-assembler-times psrl 2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xorsign.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 196219
# of unexpected failures229
# of unex
== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes178440
# of unexpected failures128
# of unexpected successes 13
# of expected failures 1595
# of unsupported tests 5035
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [remotes
1
/opt/gcc/gcc-20240425/Build/./gcc/gccgo version 14.0.1 20240425 (experimental)
[master r14-10114-g09680e3ee7d729] (GCC)
=== libgomp tests ===
Running target unix/-mabi=lp64
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes16264
# of expected
Зоро спит, а мы нет, потому что запускаем новый аниме-спешл...
t/powerpc/ppc-fortran/ieee128-math.f90 -O (test for excess
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179459
# of unexpected failures97
# of unexpected successes 20
# of expected failures 1612
# of unsupported tests 4251
/home/g
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 09:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 07:47, Gejoe Daniel via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi team,
> > The following is my query posted but would need more inputs :
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
> >
> > The gcov tool which was working so
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 07:47, Gejoe Daniel via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi team,
> The following is my query posted but would need more inputs :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
>
> The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch
> where gcc is 11.4.0 and
Regressions on master at commit r14-10115 vs commit r14-10111 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/atomic_stack.c -O0 output pattern test
FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/atomic_stack.c -O2 output pattern test
FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/bitfield_race.c -O0 output pattern test
FAIL:
New failures:
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not found.
ERROR: global config file /dejagnurc not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114738
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=114828
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
of unsupported tests 4249
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD r14-10117-g10ad46bc191] (GCC)
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114848
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also it looks like I messed up comment #0 and forgot to change powerpc to
longarch64 :). That is what I get for trying to split this all out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114849
--- Comment #2 from Manjunath Bhavimani ---
Yes i am using same ld script, only compiler version changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
Created attachment 58037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58037=edit
Expand dump
Dump attached. Insn 209 is the problematic one.
The changing from _911 to 1078 happens in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114848
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|longarch: epilogue in |loongarch: epilogue in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114849
Bug ID: 114849
Summary: Static function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
failures 5241
# of unsupported tests 23193
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xg++ version 14.0.1 20240425
(experimental) [master r14-10117-g10ad46bc19] (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/example.c -O0 execution
nexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 901
# of unresolved testcases 28
# of unsupported tests 5261
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/builds/destdir/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/arm-eabi-gcc
version 14.0.1 20240425 (experimental) [master revision
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|14.0|13.2.0
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114848
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just an FYI on other targets on my reduced testcase (I just quickly looked at
the generated assembly to see if it worked or not):
backends that seems to work:
mips
riscv
x86
s390
m68k
sh
sparc
backends
Am 25.04.2024 um 08:45 schrieb Gejoe Daniel via Gcc:
Hi team,
The following is my query posted but would need more inputs :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch
where gcc is 11.4.0 and hence we wanted to
Bitcount operations popcount, clz, and ctz are emulated for narrow modes
in case an operation is only supported for wider modes. Beside that ctz
may be emulated via clz in expand_ctz. Reflect this in
expression_expensive_p.
I considered the emulation of ctz via clz as not expensive since this
scan-assembler-times padd 5
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-reduc-1.c scan-assembler-times psrl 2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xorsign.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 196219
# of unexpected failures229
# of unex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I just happened to finish a build of aarch64 so I was able to create the
preprocessed source of unwind-dw2.i really quick. And then I just read the
aarch64.cc to see the saving of x0 happened due to
l.s[0-9]+tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 3
FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vshr.c scan-assembler-times
vshl.u[0-9]+tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 3
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes180742
# of unexpected failures317
# of expected failures 1255
# of unresolved t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|AArch64: Wrong Register |aarch64: epoligue in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
ss
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes165811
# of unexpected failures31
# of unexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 1481
# of unsupported tests 2973
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-13/gcc/xgcc version 13.2.1 20240425
[relea
150371
# of unexpected failures176
# of unexpected successes 33
# of expected failures 985
# of unresolved testcases 2
# of unsupported tests 3769
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-11/gcc/xgcc version 11.4.1 20240425
[releases/gcc-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
((insn 262 261 263 14 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 x0)
(unspec:DI [
(mem/c:V2x8QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int 16
failures 3852
# of unsupported tests 20896
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-12/gcc/xg++ version 12.3.1 20240425
[remotes/origin/releases/gcc-12 r12-10393-g43c8cb0e00] (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
XPASS: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_a.c bogus
Committed, thanks Kito and Juzhe.
Pan
From: Kito Cheng
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:19 AM
To: 钟居哲
Cc: Li, Pan2 ; gcc-patches ; Robin
Dapp
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Add xfail test case for highpart register
overlap of vwcvt
LGTM
Committed, thanks Kito and Juzhe.
Pan
-Original Message-
From: Kito Cheng
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 2:24 PM
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Cc: Li, Pan2 ; gcc-patches ; Robin
Dapp
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Add early clobber to the dest of vwsll
LGTM, thanks :)
On Thu, Apr 25,
Hi team,
The following is my query posted but would need more inputs :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch
where gcc is 11.4.0 and hence we wanted to sort this out by getting the right
help as early as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114843
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58035=edit
Preprocessed source of unwind-dw2.i which shows the issue
cc1 -fpreprocessed unwind-dw2.i -quiet -dumpbase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114845
Bug ID: 114845
Summary: Confusing message when using undeclared identifier of
Const
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
tests 3116
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-12/gcc/xgcc version 12.3.1 20240425
[remotes/origin/releases/gcc-12 r12-10393-g43c8cb0e00] (GCC)
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2.f90 -O0 execution tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114844
Bug ID: 114844
Summary: A trivial but noexcept(false) destructor is
incorrectly considered non-throwing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89462
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
201 - 300 of 317 matches
Mail list logo
