On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-03-13 04:02, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > After recent discussions on IRC and on the lists about maintainer-mode
> > and various problems with auto-generated source files, I've written
> > this small prototype.
>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:53 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2024-03-13 04:02, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > After recent discussions on IRC and on the lists about maintainer-mode
> > > and various
> "David" == David Malcolm via Gcc writes:
David> For example, there's at
David> least one place where I'd have used std::optional, but that's C++14 and
David> so unavailable.
FWIW, gdb had its own gdb::optional (which was really just a
stripped-down copy of the one from libstdc++) to fill
> "Eric" == Eric Gallager writes:
Eric> Also there are the files generated by cgen, too, which no one seems to
Eric> know how to regenerate, either.
I thought I sent out some info on this a while ago.
Anyway what I do is make a symlink to the cgen source tree in the
binutils-gdb source
March 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM, "Tom Tromey" wrote:
> >
> > "David" == David Malcolm via Gcc writes:
> >
>
> David> For example, there's at
> David> least one place where I'd have used std::optional, but that's C++14 and
> David> so unavailable.
>
> FWIW, gdb had its own gdb::optional (which
Hello GCC Community,
I am Pranil Dey, a 4th year undergraduate student of the Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur currently pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in Computer
Science and Engineering. I am interested in contributing to the GCC
projects under GSoC, specifically the projects :
Snapshot gcc-12-20240315 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20240315/
and on various mirrors, see https://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
Am 10.01.2024 um 13:34 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:02:44 +0100
Cc: i...@google.com, gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
From: Björn Schäpers
Am 07.01.2024 um 18:03 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
In that case, you an call either GetModuleHandeExA or
GetModuleHandeExW, the
Am 25.01.2024 um 23:04 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:53 AM Björn Schäpers wrote:
Am 23.01.2024 um 23:37 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:33 PM Björn Schäpers wrote:
Am 03.01.2024 um 00:12 schrieb Björn Schäpers:
Am 30.11.2023 um 20:53 schrieb Ian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114108
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114108
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:42 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> >
> > Don't enable excess lanes when inverting vector bit-masks smaller than the
> > integer mode. This is yet another case of wrong-code due to mishandling
> > of oversized bitmasks.
Hi!
While for __mulbitint3 we actually don't negate anything and perform the
multiplication in unsigned style always, for __divmodbitint4 if the operands
aren't unsigned and are negative, we negate them first and then try to
negate them as needed at the end.
quotient is negated if just one of the
Committed below as obvious. The } got lost in my copy from the internal system.
Sorry for the inconvinience.
--
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR testsuite/114343
* gcc.dg/analyzer/null-deref-pr108251-smp_fetch_ssl_fc_has_early-O2.c:
Added missing } in the dg-bogus comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Well, the shuffling in .LOAD_LANES will be a bit awkward to do, but sure. We
> basically lack "constant folding" of .LOAD_LANES and similarly of course
> we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #26 from Filip Kastl ---
Yes, the "before" is r14-5075-gc05f748218a0d5.
I just tried to take the gcda data and use them to compile mcf on another
machine. I also ran into
output.c:87:1: error: corrupted profile info: number
Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures116
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4188
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(experimental) [remote
Ping!
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
On 2024-03-08 10:14, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
Ping!
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
On 2024-02-22 09:51, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
Ping!
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
On 2024-02-07 17:21, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
Hi,
Is it okay to backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114353
Bug ID: 114353
Summary: ICE when passing LTO object files compiled for
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu to x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81f3d963e05de8b17d4ccc7667ead9ed156193a4
commit r14-9487-g81f3d963e05de8b17d4ccc7667ead9ed156193a4
Author: Tejas Belagod
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:30:26 2024 +0530
vect: Call vect_convert_output with the right vecitype [PR114108]
This patch fixes a bug where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114108
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tejas Belagod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81f3d963e05de8b17d4ccc7667ead9ed156193a4
commit r14-9487-g81f3d963e05de8b17d4ccc7667ead9ed156193a4
Author: Tejas Belagod
Date:
A failed build has been detected on builder gcc-autoregen while building gcc.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/269/builds/3846
Build state: failed 'git diff ...' (failure)
Revision: 3fd46d859cda1074125449a4cc680ce59fcebc38
Worker: bb1-2
Build
Consolidated most patches into one for easier review and added
documentation for all missing built-in traits.
Ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
This patch arranges pre-existing built-in traits alphabetically for
better codebase consistency and easier future integration of changes.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Hi!
The x86-64 and aarch64 psABIs (and the unwritten ia64 psABI part) say that
the padding bits of _BitInt are undefined, while the expansion internally
typically assumes that non-mode precision integers are sign/zero extended
and extends after operations. We handle that mismatch with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 114009, which changed state.
Bug 114009 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization: (!a) * a => 0
when a=(a/2)*2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114009
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab2da8fb67b1aa0557a16b62689a888730dba610
commit r14-9494-gab2da8fb67b1aa0557a16b62689a888730dba610
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri Mar 15 10:46:47 2024 +0100
i386: Fix a pasto in ix86_expand_int_sse_cmp [PR114339]
In r13-3803-gfa271afb58 I've added an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab2da8fb67b1aa0557a16b62689a888730dba610
commit r14-9494-gab2da8fb67b1aa0557a16b62689a888730dba610
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30e1c3d7e828b2bf2eee1660661bbc79f4151bd6
commit r14-9495-g30e1c3d7e828b2bf2eee1660661bbc79f4151bd6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri Mar 15 12:20:04 2024 +0100
lower-subreg, edit-context: Fix comment typos
When backporting r14-9315 to 13 branch, I've noticed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Exactly. I have a (one-line) patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 15/03/2024 12:21, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Given the large number of AMD GPU ISAs and the number of files which
have to be adapted, I wonder whether it makes sense to consolidate this
a bit, especially in the light that we may want to support more in the
future.
Besides using some macros, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111864
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> It almost looks like a costing issue. The threaders find opportunities to
> thread all the incoming edges in the key block to the path which avoids the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] address |[13 Regression] address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100285
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
> > + if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t1)))
> > +{
> > + if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1))
> > + {
> > + if (!SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->align != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)->align
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->misalign != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110710
--- Comment #11 from peter0x44 at disroot dot org ---
.I did some digging into why lto-wrapper.cc is emitting these commands
It seems that they are not essential.
/* If we are not preserving the ltrans input files then
truncate them as soon
Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures116
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4196
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(experimental) [remote
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114334
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures132
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4194
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(ex
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:35:07AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Here we ICE because we call register_local_specialization while
> > local_specializations is null, so
Regressions on native/master at commit r14-9496 vs commit r14-9484 on
Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/convert-dfp-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/convert-dfp.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
1462
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-master-intel64-native/bld/gcc/xgcc version
14.0.1 20240315 (experimental) [native/master r14-9496-gb5e1f069611] (GCC)
=== g++ tests ===
Running target sde
FAIL: g++.target/i386/mv28.C -std=c++14 (test for errors, line 10)
FAIL: g++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108866
peter0x44 at disroot dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter0x44 at disroot dot
OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
The hyphen can be misunderstood to mean "emitted to -" i.e. stdout.
Refer to both forms by name, rather than using "the former" for one and
referring to the other by name.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/invoke.texi (Diagnostic Message Formatting Options):
Replace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320
--- Comment #2 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Sorry about that. I've not been able to work out what configure flags I need to
pass to cause this to error in the first place (I don't normally develop for
powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114349
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
using A = struct {};
template class, typename, typename>
using B = A;
template
using C = typename T::D;
struct E {
using D = B;
};
template constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures132
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4194
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5e1f0696110fbf5c73426ede70562edc6f54481
commit r14-9496-gb5e1f0696110fbf5c73426ede70562edc6f54481
Author: YunQiang Su
Date: Fri Mar 15 21:22:40 2024 +0800
Regenerate opt.urls
Fixes: acc38ff59976 ("MIPS: Add -m(no-)strict-align option")
Fixes: acc38ff59976 ("MIPS: Add -m(no-)strict-align option")
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv.opt.urls: Regenerated.
* config/rs6000/sysv4.opt.urls: Likewise.
* config/xtensa/xtensa.opt.urls: Likewise.
---
gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt.urls | 2 +-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114354
Bug ID: 114354
Summary: std::shared_ptr constructor constraints are checked
too late
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Though, trying that in a cross to arm, with -march=armv9-a
> -munaligned-access it matches (in that case I believe vect_hw_misalign
> should be true), but it
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, the new testcase FAILs on sparc*-* due to
lack of support of misaligned store.
This patch restricts that to vect_hw_misalign targets.
Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, committed to trunk based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431#c21 comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:35:07AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > -- >8 --
> > > Here we ICE because we call
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:24 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 15/03/2024 07:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:42 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Don't enable excess lanes when inverting vector bit-masks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107337
Alfred Agrell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blubban at gmail dot com
--- Comment
On Mar 13, 2024, at 15:19, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Mar 11, 2024, at 13:15, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2024-02-16 14:47, Qing Zhao wrote:
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-ubsan.cc (get_bound_from_access_with_size): New function.
(ubsan_instrument_bounds): Handle call to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
> Here we ICE because we call register_local_specialization while
> local_specializations is null, so
>
> local_specializations->put ();
>
> crashes on null this. It's null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113727
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114269
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 12:15, Victor Do Nascimento
wrote:
>
> Given how, at present, the choice of using LSE128 atomic instructions
> by the toolchain is delegated to run-time selection in the form of
> Libatomic ifuncs, responsible for querying target support, the
> `+lse128' target architecture
LAST_UPDATED: Fri Mar 15 13:40:05 UTC 2024 (revision r14-9496-gb5e1f069611)
Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-47.c pr97027 (test for warnings, line 72)
XPASS: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-47.c pr97027
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 06:02:27PM +, Andreas Krebbel via Gcc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we could replace the register asm construct for
> inline assemblies with something a bit nicer and more obvious.
> E.g. turning this (real world example from IBM Z kernel code):
>
> int
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This is more-or-less what I was planning to do myself, but as I want
to include all the other features that get parametrized in gcn.cc,
gcn.h, gcn-hsa.h, gcn-opts.h, I hadn't got around to it yet.
Unfortunately, I think the gcn.opt and config.gcc will always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
Hello,
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 13/01/2024 20:46, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cde-mve-error-2.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cde-mve-error-2.c
>> index 5b7774825442..da283a06a54d 100644
>> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Go right ahead. I'm mostly trying to get things in the right broad buckets.
So if you've got additional information, please add it.
(test for excess
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes178057
# of unexpected failures148
# of unexpected successes 12
# of expected failures 1597
# of unsupported tests 4973
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc
Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures116
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4196
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(experimental) [remote
(test for excess
errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes178057
# of unexpected failures148
# of unexpected successes 12
# of expected failures 1597
# of unsupported tests 4973
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112703
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112710
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffd47fb63ddc024db847daa07f8ae27fffdfcb28
commit r14-9497-gffd47fb63ddc024db847daa07f8ae27fffdfcb28
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri Mar 15 16:50:25 2024 +0100
testsuite: Fix pr113431.c FAIL on sparc* [PR113431]
As mentioned in the PR, the new testcase FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffd47fb63ddc024db847daa07f8ae27fffdfcb28
commit r14-9497-gffd47fb63ddc024db847daa07f8ae27fffdfcb28
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113396
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
The second testcase behaves the same with -O0, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux for
me (and with trunk and GCC 13.2.1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89645
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 89645, which changed state.
Bug 89645 Summary: No IMPLICIT type error with: ASSOCIATE( X => function() )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89645
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99065
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
This mega-patch, on the scale of the importance of the problem, was required
because of gfortran's one pass parsing. It might be a temporary fix because I
am contemplating how an initial pass of contained
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes179065
# of unexpected failures132
# of unexpected successes 19
# of expected failures 1614
# of unsupported tests 4186
/home/gccbuild/build/nightly/build-gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.1 20240315
(ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114338
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
For canonicalization the BIT_AND variants might be preferable since they
possibly combine with other logical ops. Also more constant operands
when the number of operations is the same might be preferable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114343
Torbjorn SVENSSON changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114341
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kang-Che Sung from comment #3)
> I missed one case that is more obvious:
> (1 << __builtin_ctz(y)) == (y & -y)
>
> Multiplication is not needed in this case, and thus (1 << __builtin_ctz(y))
>
Hi!
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 04:58:41PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Add the [[nodiscard]] attribute to several functions in .
r14-9478 added [[nodiscard]] to various APIs including find_if
the pr104601.C testcase uses. As it is an optimization bug fix testcase,
haven't tried to adjust the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #28 from Filip Kastl ---
Created attachment 57710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57710=edit
gcda data for himeno
I've tried sharing non-SPEC gcda data between machines. I used this benchmark
htly/build-gcc-13/gcc/xgcc version 13.2.1 20240315
[releases/gcc-13 r13-8440-gc471d29aff] (GCC)
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2.f90 -O0 execution test
XPASS: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_2.f90 -O1 execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114280
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 114280, which changed state.
Bug 114280 Summary: ASSOCIATE fails with inquiry references when selector
function not yet parsed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114280
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 326 matches
Mail list logo
