https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 regression] Stack|[11 regression] Stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114580
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ and 13.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+, 13.4+ and 14.2+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Bogus|[11 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114825
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Compiler |[11 Regression] Compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114753
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Crash|[11 Regression] Crash Issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] Misaligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114533
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] [aarch64]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE with |[11 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114184
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114007
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too (the same way as for 13.3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113674
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113122
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 12.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Wrong|[11 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] Partition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ERROR: |[11 Regression] ERROR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE when |[11 Regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115374
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The bug is mixing MMX with floating point and expecting it to work, it will
never work properly, you need manual emms in between, or better yet, avoid MMX
altogether, it really isn't worth it. Just use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115352
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=115352
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've first tried
--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2024-04-12 10:59:48.233153262 +0200
+++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2024-06-06 11:05:29.845597763 +0200
@@ -4324,7 +4324,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115367
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Niklas Hambüchen from comment #0)
> Those docs sound like the behaviour is nice "runtime-dynamic" when in fact
> it is fixed across the process's liftime, and based on ultra-slow rolling
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, if building with GCC 11 works and with GCC 12 doesn't, can you build two
trees, one with either compiler and then bisect first among the shared
libraries or binaries (find out which shared library or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed now.
I think we want to backport the fold-const.cc first patch to older branches
too, but it will be different there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression] PCH of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Bug 115092 depends on bug 114902, which changed state.
Bug 114902 Summary: [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp
-fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If the
former, then I agree it is a global property (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
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=115337
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58342=edit
gcc15-pr115337-4.patch
And finally, I think tree_call_expr_nonzero can handle CTZ the same as CLZ now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58341=edit
gcc15-pr115337-3.patch
Improve ranger handling of .CLZ (x, -1). As the stdbit.h builtins now use
that value, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58340=edit
gcc15-pr115337-2.patch
Fixes for some formatting issues I found during the debugging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58339=edit
gcc15-pr115337-1.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58337=edit
gcc15-pr114493.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That was added for C++ in PR70512.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44298
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mr.bossman075 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 44298 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mr.bossman075 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, fold_builtin_arith_overflow just does
tree call = build_call_expr_internal_loc (loc, ifn, ctype, 2,
arg0, arg1);
tree tgt = save_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this is just invalid testcase.
The compiler is told that *a is const, but it is changed through a different
lvalue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58331
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58331=edit
gcc15-pr115324.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Bug ID: 115324
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] PCH (and maybe GC) of rs6000
builtins broken
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Natalie Perlin from comment #17)
> Brief note on the errors is below. Does it need to be submitted as a
> separate ticket/different bug?
Yes.
> I'd prepare a preprocessed file where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115245
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We can't even demangle what has been added to the testsuite in that commit,
e.g.
_ZN1C1fIiEEvDTtlNS_UlT_TL0__E_EEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115245
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In particular cp/mangle.cc implements
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/31#issuecomment-528122117
while demangler does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115245
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> int main()
> {
> const int n = 3;
> float d[n*n];
> float4_t a[n*n];
I'd recommend using #define n 3 or enum { n = 3 }; instead of const int n = 3;
so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So provide fixes upstream and hope they apply them soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115172
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 13.4+/14.2+/15.1+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #18)
> No, allowing value-changing transformations under -ftrapping-math is really
> not appropriate. Invoking the intrinsic on a large floating-point value is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think the cost of using UNSPEC would be significant if the backend
tried to constant fold more target builtins. Anyway, with the proposed changes
perhaps you could keep using FIX/UNSIGNED_FIX for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You want to fix the code as described in e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html , not find workarounds. The code
was apparently never valid C99+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115172
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Fedor Pchelkin from comment #6)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > > Created attachment 58261 [details]
> > > gcc15-pr115172.patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any of the floating point to integer intrinsics if they have out of range value
(haven't checked whether floating point to unsigned intrinsic is a problem too
or not).
No matter if it is float or double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In that case we should separate *.md patterns which are used for C conversions
from the patterns used by the intrinsics, keep using what we are right now for
the former and either use UNSPEC (the quickest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The standard GCC behavior is that out of range floating conversions to integers
result in signed integer maximum if the floating point value sign is clear and
signed integer minimum otherwise (including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Trying
#include
int
main ()
{
float f = 0x0.8p+33f;
float __attribute__((vector_size (16))) vf = { 0x0.8p+33f, 0x0.8p+33f,
0x0.8p+33f, 0x0.8p+33f };
int a = f;
int __attribute__((vector_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115160
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no inc in the last term.
Anyway, simplified example would be
int deref (int *);
int *inc (int *&);
int
baz (int *p)
{
return deref (inc (p)) | (deref (inc (p)) << 8) | (deref (inc (p)) << 16) |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58262
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58262=edit
gcc15-pr115152.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115172
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said,
--- gcc/ubsan.cc.jj 2024-03-22 09:23:37.695296775 +0100
+++ gcc/ubsan.cc2024-05-21 12:10:24.261454107 +0200
@@ -1776,13 +1776,17 @@ instrument_bool_enum_load (gimple_stmt_i
||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115160
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no sequence point analyzer in any compiler I'm aware of and I think it
would be extremely hard to implement that.
GCC has -Wsequence-point warning, which can handle lots of cases, but with the
C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #15 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114992
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #14 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114619
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 10807 matches
Mail list logo
