https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106682
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101444
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes `(a > 0) & (b > 0)` is not the same as `(a|b) > 0`. I think we already
catch all of the related `(a CMP 0) &/| (b CMP 0)`; see PR 95731 for those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems like a reduced testcase, where is the original testcase from? Or is
it an automated code generator?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104221
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathanieloshead at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
What match is doing is correct, what reassoc is doing looks to be ok, but the
gimplifier just falls over on `SSA_NAME != 0`.
This fixes the ICE but I don't understand how the gimplifier was handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems that we still didn't locate the real problem of failed SPEC you ran.
Do you have any other ideas to locale the real problem ?
Li Pan didn't locate the problem neither.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
#6 0x00d4594f in force_gimple_operand_gsi (gsi=0x7fffd3c0,
expr=0x779fe6e0, simple_p=true, var=0x0, before=true, m=GSI_SAME_STMT) at
../../gcc/gimplify-me.cc:141
141 return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #1)
> int k[3];
It would better if we didn't depend on an uninitialized variable (I have a
patch against reassoc to not handle uninitialized/undef names) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(gdb) p debug_tree(*expr_p)
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set 2 canonical-type
0x7741c5e8 precision:32 min max
pointer_to_this >
visited var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Testcase:
int a;
long b;
signed c;
short d;
short i;
void f() {
int k[3];
int *l =
d = 0;
for (; c; c--) {
i = 0;
for (; i <= 9; i++) {
b = 1;
for (; b <= 4; b++)
k[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Bug ID: 113228
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: recalculate_side_effects, at
gimplify.cc:3347
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
--- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su ---
Sorry for noise. This proposal is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #7 from Patrick O'Neill ---
527 still fails on zvl128. I'll let the rest of spec run overnight and let you
know the status of 549 once it finishes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
Bug ID: 113227
Summary: Maybe optimization (a>0) && (b>0) with or&<0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by YunQiang Su :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65d4b32dee2508f5bcdd999a132332cd46cf8a4d
commit r14-6905-g65d4b32dee2508f5bcdd999a132332cd46cf8a4d
Author: YunQiang Su
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113010
--- Comment #2 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Andrew I don't think this is a duplicate of pr112758 (or at least it wasn't
resolved by the fix for pr112758).
I still see the behavior on r14-6902-g4a0a8dc1b88.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113209
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29215
Bug 29215 depends on bug 30271, which changed state.
Bug 30271 Summary: -mstrict-align can add an store extra for struct argument
passing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 30271, which changed state.
Bug 30271 Summary: -mstrict-align can add an store extra for struct argument
passing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 30271, which changed state.
Bug 30271 Summary: -mstrict-align can add an store extra for struct argument
passing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Bug ID: 113226
Summary: [14 Regression]
testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc fails for
cris-elf after r14-6888-ga138b99646a555
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
Both PR113206 and PR113209 are the same root cause and I have fixed both of
them.
Could you try the latest upstream GCC test SPEC 527/549 again to see whether it
fixes the bugs in SPEC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 112525, which changed state.
Bug 112525 Summary: fail to eliminate unused store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112525
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112525
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113209
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602
commit r14-6902-g4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Thu Jan 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602
commit r14-6902-g4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Thu Jan 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Otto ---
I don't mind. If your patch also contains a test case, just use that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113223
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Jerry can you take a look at this issue.
Will do. Minor tweak I hope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113223
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113218
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically FBSD_LIB_SPEC in gcc/config/freebsd-spec.h should be modified to
`%{pg:` related parts. But only do that for FBSD_MAJOR >= 14 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59389
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #6)
> > I am getting a similar-looking error with gcc-13.2.0 now:
> > https://github.com/NGSolve/ngsolve/issues/68
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59389
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #6)
> I am getting a similar-looking error with gcc-13.2.0 now:
> https://github.com/NGSolve/ngsolve/issues/68
Both clang and GCC reject the original testcase still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59389
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113225
Bug ID: 113225
Summary: bpf: attributekernel_helper function declarations
create a BTF_FUNC_EXTERN.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c522c9eafa5b86b78cd7b3044e120762fb4c879
commit r14-6899-g1c522c9eafa5b86b78cd7b3044e120762fb4c879
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113224
--- Comment #3 from gandalf at winds dot org ---
Thank you for the suggestion. I'll try the union.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113224
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>In an attempt to convert a float value bytewise to an integer,
You should use memcpy instead (or an union which itself a GCC extension).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113224
Bug ID: 113224
Summary: Warning "is used uninitialized" raised for an
initialized variable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113222
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113223
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113223
Bug ID: 113223
Summary: NAMELIST internal write missing leading blank
character
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19347
--- Comment #10 from Phosit ---
The analysis in my previous comment is wrong.
I don't know why there is no alias-check at -O2.
Also the loop _is_ removed at -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19347
Phosit changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||phosit at autistici dot org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113222
Bug ID: 113222
Summary: ICE with -fanalyzer seen on Linux kernel
kernel/sched/core.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113221
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
IRA decided to combine:
```
(insn 9 8 19 3 (set (reg/f:DI 104)
(lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 105)
(symbol_ref:DI ("bar") [flags 0x41] ))) "t.c":5:10 discrim 1 -1
(expr_list:REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113221
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, but the IR from the ldp_fusion pass looks ok:
```
(insn 30 29 15 3 (set (reg/f:DI 110)
(lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 109)
(symbol_ref:DI ("_Z3barv") [flags 0x41] )))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
nfigure --prefix=/home/mjires/built/master
--target=aarch64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer --enable-checking
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20240103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #34 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #32)
> > /tmp/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h:437:
> > warning: 'void* __builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, long unsigned int)'
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113217
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Most likely we should only handle stores instructions which cannot throw,
> insn_nothrow_p .
s/stores/stores and loads/ really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113217
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
From:
```
(insn 7 2 8 2 (set (mem:SI (reg/f:DI 103 [ this ]) [1 MEM[(struct vector
*)this_4(D)].D.4476._M_end_of_storage+0 S4 A32])
(const_int 0 [0])) "/app/example.cpp":6:27 69 {*movsi_aarch64}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113217
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113220
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.sandiford at arm dot com |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
ad model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20240103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113219
Bug ID: 113219
Summary: Overloaded ref-qualified conversion operator triggers
bogus -Wconversion
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113218
Bug ID: 113218
Summary: gcc -pg fails on contemporary FreeBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113203
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Krah ---
> Or, if the intention is that all calls to the function within its TU
> are inlined and not the other ones, split the function into two, one
> always_inline which is used from within the TU and another one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2110667d43486174dda37a95f73d71941b394655
commit r11-11179-g2110667d43486174dda37a95f73d71941b394655
Author: Patrick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82420
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Created attachment 56985
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56985=edit
proposed fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fb2b5c9a7fb212a5936cc702e49175ef988e5ad
commit r12-10079-g1fb2b5c9a7fb212a5936cc702e49175ef988e5ad
Author: Patrick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56984=edit
gcc14-pr90693.patch
Untested patch to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af767e0b9e926fa1ef217087ce3b076be361965f
commit r13-8189-gaf767e0b9e926fa1ef217087ce3b076be361965f
Author: Patrick Palka
posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20240103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106653
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106653, which changed state.
Bug 106653 Summary: [C++23] P2582 - Class template argument deduction from
inherited constructors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106653
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-01-02 10:21 a.m., tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Aha, sorry. Does it work if you changes:
>
> -AC_CHECK_PROG(FLOCK, perl, $srcdir/testsuite/flock)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113120
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although this is accepted even though it's in a template, so it's more
complicated than just template vs non-template:
template
consteval void f( char const* p )
{
char buf[N]{};
if (p == buf) //
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the comparison happens in a template, GCC rejects it (see PR 113200).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> Why does GCC accept this reduced version, which is invalid for the same
> reason as the original?
Looks like PR 70248
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-10-15 00:00:00 |2024-1-3
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why does GCC accept this reduced version, which is invalid for the same reason
as the original?
#include
constexpr int N = 5;
struct S
{
char data_[ N ];
constexpr S( char const* p )
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #7)
> > You don't necessarily need dynamic_cast because facets are always installed
> > and obtained by their exact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Michal Jireš changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeevitha at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113216
Bug ID: 113216
Summary: [OpenMP] Improve omp_target_is_accessible
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113215
Bug ID: 113215
Summary: gimple FE can't handle static local variable with
initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
ub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.c?h=next-20240103#n322
Reproducer at https://godbolt.org/z/MMaz8rqcj
aarch64-linux-gcc-13.2 -Wall -O2 -fsanitize=thread -Werror=stringop-overflow
-Wall -c xe_gt_pagefault.c
xe_gt_pagefault.c: In function 'xe_guc_pagef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113116
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #2)
> Did you mean -Ofast native PGO? both linked runs are PGO.
Yes I did. I meant PGO and wrote LTO. My bad :).
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
