https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108644
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43613
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike ---
Patch thread started here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644674.html
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/4700e066-1b50-4e7b-92f7-d8c33a330...@gmail.com/
and ended with this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
--- Comment #6 from 严 逍宇 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> As I mentioned, that works on linux just fine:
Thank you for your time. And when can I use this feature on mingw? I think the
behavior of swap two long vectors should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to 严 逍宇 from comment #4)
> I find an example without abi problem:
As I mentioned, that works on linux just fine:
```
vmovdqa64 (%rdi), %zmm1
vmovdqa64 64(%rdi), %zmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
--- Comment #4 from 严 逍宇 ---
I find an example without abi problem:
===
Source Code
===
using v [[using gnu: vector_size(128)]] = char;
void f(v *pa, v *pb) noexcept
{
v a{*pa}, b{*pb};
*pa = b;
*pb = a;
}
===
Command
===
g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>GCC generates extra stack operation
That is basically to realign the stack just in case there was a spill, this
happens more on mingw compiling than linux really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113978
Bug ID: 113978
Summary: Misoptimize for long vector load operation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109885
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
int sum() {
int ret = 0;
for (int i=0; i<8; ++i) ret +=(0==v[i]);
return ret;
}
int sum2() {
int ret = 0;
auto m = v==0;
for (int i=0; i<8; ++i) ret += m[i];
return ret;
}
For sum, gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
>(which is likely inherited from the default structure alignment requirement on
>the platform)
That is wrong assumption really. Since the ABI (the platform) says the
alignment is type depedent and in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi, Robin. Could you continue on this LICM issue ?
I am not sure whether my fix is correct, or you may find another way to make
LICM works ?
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2024-02-06 21:14
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.cheng
CC: rdapp.gcc; gcc-patches; Kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
trunk gdb fails too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tan Senqi from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think gcc can generate a DW_AT_alignment for my struct to solve this
> problem. But why the alignment is considered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #4 from Tan Senqi ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> For me with the trunk GCC we get:
> ```
> (gdb) expr z[0]._[0] = 1
> gdb command line:1:1: error: size of array element is not a multiple of its
> alignment
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
For me with the trunk GCC we get:
```
(gdb) expr z[0]._[0] = 1
gdb command line:1:1: error: size of array element is not a multiple of its
alignment
Compilation failed.
(gdb) expr y[0]._[0] = 1
(gdb) expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |libcc1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems like a bug in gdb really.
GCC produces:
```
.uleb128 0x3# (DIE (0x2e) DW_TAG_structure_type)
.ascii "s7\0" # DW_AT_name
.byte 0x7 # DW_AT_byte_size
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:33 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Since push2/pop2 requires 16-byte stack alignment, don't generate them
> if the incoming stack isn't 16-byte aligned.
Ok.
>
> gcc/
>
> PR target/113912
> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_can_use_push2pop2): New.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108192
jyong at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyong at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #57 from Hongtao Liu ---
> For dg-do run testcases I really think we should avoid those -march=
> options, because it means a lot of other stuff, BMI, LZCNT, ...
Make sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113977
Bug ID: 113977
Summary: debug info for alignment of structure is unspecified
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Pushed to r14-9054.
在 2024/2/6 上午10:10, Lulu Cheng 写道:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/larchintrin.h (__movgr2fcsr): Remove redundant
symbol type conversions.
(__cacop_d): Likewise.
(__cpucfg): Likewise.
(__asrtle_d): Likewise.
(__asrtgt_d):
Pushed to r14-9053.
在 2024/2/6 上午10:10, Lulu Cheng 写道:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/larchintrin.h (__iocsrrd_h): Modify the
function return value type to unsigned short.
---
gcc/config/loongarch/larchintrin.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113889
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57453=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed patch and associated testcases.
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Chinese (simplified) team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/zh_CN.po
(This file,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113974
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang since 4.0 has the same behavior as GCC here ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113971
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
the intent was not to enable this feature for platforms we could not test.
but libgcc/config.host has "aarch64*-*-linux*" so we have inadvertently enabled
it for aarch64-linux-musl.
assuming linux-musl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113862
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Well, this is very irregular if it happens to be legal, since it would be
illegal if the raise was replaced by anything else. More of a bug in the
language than in the compiler if you ask me...
Snapshot gcc-13-20240217 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20240217/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Summary|failure to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Florian Weimer writes:
> ---
> htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html | 46
> ---
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
> index bbbaa25a..123b5e9f 100644
> ---
Florian Weimer writes:
> ---
> htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html | 43
> +++
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
> index 123b5e9f..ab65c5e7 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|explicit instantiation of |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Bug ID: 113976
Summary: explicit instantiation of const variable template
following implicit instantiation is assembled in
.rodata instead of .bss
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113897
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113892
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113975
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113892
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||comptes at ugo235 dot fr
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:15:55PM +0200, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> When not optimized for speed, the test for PR112344 takes several
> seconds to execute on native x86_64, and 15 minutes on PRU target
> simulator. Thus mark those variants as expensive. The -O2 variant
> which originally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113911
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
When not optimized for speed, the test for PR112344 takes several
seconds to execute on native x86_64, and 15 minutes on PRU target
simulator. Thus mark those variants as expensive. The -O2 variant
which originally triggered the PR is not expensive, hence it is
still run by default.
Ok for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113970
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pch |c++
CC|
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 09:59:12PM +0200, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:06:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:52:17PM +0200, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> > > The issue in PR112344 is triggered only at -O2, so there is little value
> > > in running
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:06:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:52:17PM +0200, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> > The issue in PR112344 is triggered only at -O2, so there is little value
> > in running the test at lower optimization levels. At the same time the
>
> That is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113975
Bug ID: 113975
Summary: function returning array is not fully evaluated before
assignement
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In addition to underlines and strikethroughs. This makes it easier to
> spot the differences in example code changes.
Looks like a good idea!
Thanks,
Gerald
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113966
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
$ gfc -Wall -Werror -pedantic pr83282.f90
pr83282.f90:1:4:
1 |write(*,'(aa)') "ab", "bc"
|1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
This is not very useful either. :o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With -std=f95 we get:
$ gfc -std=f95 pr83282.f90
pr83282.f90:1:13:
1 |write(*,'(aa)') "ab", "bc"
| 1
Error: GNU Extension: Missing comma at (1)
pr83282.f90:2:17:
2 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113862
--- Comment #2 from Pascal Pignard ---
Nevertheless, theses examples of code come from AARM Ada 2022:
11.3 Raise Statements and Raise Expressions
...
All of the following are legal, no additional parens are needed:
2.a.10/4Pre :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113966
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57452=edit
semi reduced testcase
Reduced somewhat. There is some more to go but I will leave that for someone
else. Some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #27 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a71d87431d0c4e04a402ef6566be090c470b2b53
commit r14-9050-ga71d87431d0c4e04a402ef6566be090c470b2b53
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
David: Ping.
On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 10:36 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Yes, it is for a use case inside of rustc_codegen_gcc.
> The compiler is structured in a way where we don't know if a global
> variable might be constant when it is created.
>
> On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 10:09 -0500, David
David: Ping.
On Thu, 2024-01-25 at 16:04 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Thanks for the review!
>
> On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 13:10 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 18:42 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > This patch fixes the bug 113343.
> > > I'm wondering if there's
David: Ping.
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 15:59 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> David: Ping.
>
> On Thu, 2023-12-21 at 11:59 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > Hi.
> > This patch adds the ability to send const pointer as argument to a
> > function.
> > Thanks for the review.
>
David: Ping.
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 15:21 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> David: Ping.
>
> On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:16 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > All of these are fixed in this new patch.
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 18:05 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On
David: Ping.
On Thu, 2023-12-21 at 08:36 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Hi.
> Here's the updated patch.
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 20:15 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 17:34 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > This patch adds checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113969
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113974
Bug ID: 113974
Summary: Attribute common ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113503
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:296284a9dbb7df4485cc5f1d3e975fdb4b8a10b8
commit r14-9049-g296284a9dbb7df4485cc5f1d3e975fdb4b8a10b8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113969
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96496
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-08-06 00:00:00 |2024-2-17
--- Comment #5 from Marek
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:05:16PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > +program pr113503
> > + implicit none
> > + type :: T
> > +character(len=:), allocatable :: u
> > + end type
> > + character(len=20) :: us(1) = 'foobar'
> > + type(T) :: x
> > + x = T(u = trim (us(1))) ! { dg-bogus "is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96360
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107068
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fccfe6625121512f247cb59888e50eb9dcc84409
commit r14-9048-gfccfe6625121512f247cb59888e50eb9dcc84409
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113973
Bug ID: 113973
Summary: Pleas issue a warning when using plain character
values in bitwise operations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113966
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
/* Check any placeholder constraints against the deduced type. */
if (processing_template_decl && context == adc_unify)
/* Constraints will be checked after deduction. */;
else if (tree constr =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113972
Bug ID: 113972
Summary: ICE on container map for aggregate.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Internal compiler
Hi Jakub,
On 2/17/24 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The r14-870 changes broke xtb package tests (reduced testcase is the first
one below) and caused ICEs on a test derived from that (the second one).
[...]
thanks for your detailed analysis and for the patch, which puts
things in straight
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113969
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113968
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113158
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113158
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:876fa432ef4074053fa65b1855e7d43320515576
commit r14-9047-g876fa432ef4074053fa65b1855e7d43320515576
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
Thanks for the link, tested and committed.
On 15/02/2024 19:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 18:38, François Dumont
wrote:
On 15/02/2024 14:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 21:48, François Dumont
wrote:
On 14/02/2024 20:44,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113911
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76aac40f5ecbc9cfb3b8734d181599e1b5a24bdf
commit r14-9045-g76aac40f5ecbc9cfb3b8734d181599e1b5a24bdf
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113971
Bug ID: 113971
Summary: failure to build on arm64 musl (#error "Unsupported
AArch64 platform for heap trampolines")
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113970
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113970
Bug ID: 113970
Summary: [14 Regression] pch/system-{1,2}.C fails on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112294
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin21 |x86_64-apple-darwin*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 110893, which changed state.
Bug 110893 Summary: [modules] ICE Segmentation fault during GIMPLE pass modref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110893
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110893
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113728
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
This has been worked around in glibc. Should we close this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113969
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57449=edit
very similar testcase, ICEing in build_enumerator instead
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc testcase2.C -wrapper valgrind,-q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113967
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-9043-20240217001708-gd70f155b074-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240217 (experimental) (GCC)
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240217 (experimental) (GCC)
From: Pan Li
This patch would like to add the middle-end presentation for the
unsigned saturation add. Aka set the result of add to the max
when overflow. It will take the pattern similar as below.
SAT_ADDU (x, y) => (x + y) | (-(TYPE)((TYPE)(x + y) < x))
Take uint8_t as example, we will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113967
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ICE: in |[14 Regression] ICE: in
> OK for trunk and later backport to 13?
OK. Thanks for the patch!
FX
> OK for trunk?
> I think simple enough to backport to 13 as well.
OK, but probably best to wait a few weeks before backporting.
FX
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
