https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
Bug ID: 105923
Summary: unsupported return type ‘complex double’ for simd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65328
--- Comment #11 from juchem at gmail dot com ---
great job
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105756
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Thanks! Could you consider backporting to 12.x soonish, if possible? I ask
because with this, the 12.x branch is then in a pretty good state for more
widespread testing.
(Unfortunately, I got a bit unlucky and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105922
Bug ID: 105922
Summary: AArch64 SVE instruction generated with all SIMD lane
active and zero-divide exception flag raised
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99858
James Y Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot net
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #16 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
additional work are needed in order to make this task complete:
1. add one more new gcc option:
-fstrict-flex-arrays
when it's on, only treat the following cases as flexing array:
trailing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #15 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the following patch will fix the issue with this testing case:
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 gcc]$ git diff
diff --git a/gcc/tree-object-size.cc b/gcc/tree-object-size.cc
index 5ca87ae3504..7df092346b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65328
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:343d83c7a89d0c7a78139e685395228115a28f6e
commit r13-1047-g343d83c7a89d0c7a78139e685395228115a28f6e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105921
--- Comment #1 from Yclept Nemo ---
AFAICT, the attachment includes everything needed in a bug report. Inlining the
code here for convenience:
#include
template
auto a = (struct A {
template
using Temp = T1;
template
auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105921
Bug ID: 105921
Summary: internal compiler error: in cp_parser_template_id, at
cp/parser.cc:18362
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104642
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
The suggested -funreachable-traps seems to have a lot of overlap with
-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error; I wonder about combining them, and having
it by itself imply -fsanitize=unreachable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
--- Comment #10 from Bill Long ---
The original issue seems fixed in 12.1. However, the wording of the ERROR
message (objecting that something is not a DATA entity when it really is) could
still be improved. Can we either convert this bug to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
--- Comment #3 from Lewis Hyatt ---
I can look into that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maik.urbannek at cattatech dot
de
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104640
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It hasn't been fixed on 11 and 10 branches yet, that is why it is kept open but
12/13 has been removed from the Summary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
libquadmath is essentially legacy code. People working directly in C
should be using the C23 _Float128 interfaces and *f128 functions, as in
current glibc, rather than libquadmath interf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
--- Comment #18 from Loren Osborn ---
It appears this fix has already been merged into trunk. Is there a reason this
isn't marked "Resolved"? Is that usually not updated until the next release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #17 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> From what I can see, it is mostly integral implementation and we already
> have one such in GCC, so the question is if we just shouldn't use it (most
> of the sou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #16 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14)
> @Michael: Now that gcc 12 is out of the door, I would suggest we try to get
> your code into the gcc tree for gcc 13.
>
> It should follow the gcc style guideline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
Bug ID: 105920
Summary: __builtin_cpu_supports ("f16c") should check AVX
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105919
Bug ID: 105919
Summary: Internal compiler error when using -fanalyzer on
php-src
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105690
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
I managed to minimize the testcase a bit more:
unsigned int gvar1;
void fun1(int);
void fun2(unsigned int, char *);
int fun2_maxlen;
typedef struct {
int exist;
int mode;
} table_t;
table_t gtable[20];
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105880
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2385d1fe9f9ee0b5940ba27b41b79c9db051104
commit r10-10824-gf2385d1fe9f9ee0b5940ba27b41b79c9db051104
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92978
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671970a5621e18e7079b4ca113e56434c858db66
commit r13-1040-g671970a5621e18e7079b4ca113e56434c858db66
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671970a5621e18e7079b4ca113e56434c858db66
commit r13-1040-g671970a5621e18e7079b4ca113e56434c858db66
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105880
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e65f2ed99024f23c56f7b6a961898bcaa882a92
commit r13-1039-g1e65f2ed99024f23c56f7b6a961898bcaa882a92
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7061
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1753a7120109c1d3b682f9487d6cca64fb2f0929
commit r13-1038-g1753a7120109c1d3b682f9487d6cca64fb2f0929
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Fri Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105907
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b370ed0bf93ecf0ff51d29e7fc132c433b2aa1be
commit r13-1037-gb370ed0bf93ecf0ff51d29e7fc132c433b2aa1be
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105918
Bug ID: 105918
Summary: Spurious Warray-bounds in std::to_chars
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 95126, which changed state.
Bug 95126 Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] Missed opportunity to turn static
variables into immediates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95126
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95126
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] commit |[10 Regression] commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60c84707034f025de3c8821cc5d6f27ff59143b0
commit r11-10058-g60c84707034f025de3c8821cc5d6f27ff59143b0
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105917
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed passthru jump|[10/11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #5 from Benda Xu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Benda Xu from comment #0)
> > 2. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/25313
>
> N.B. I'm fixing it like this instead of backporting 42eff613d0, so th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|13.0|rust/master
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105914
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|13.0|rust/master
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105908
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105917
Bug ID: 105917
Summary: Missed passthru jump function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Benda Xu from comment #0)
> 2. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/25313
N.B. I'm fixing it like this instead of backporting 42eff613d0, so that pull
request might want to use the same patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-10
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #3 from Benda Xu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
>
> Only when compiling with clang, presumably.
Yes, that's true. To be specific, we meet it in the AMD ROCm on Gentoo, where
the HIP compiler is based on llvm and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105916
Bug ID: 105916
Summary: gfortran -fdiagnostics-format=json yields incorrect
output
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Benda Xu from comment #0)
> With a MWE of
>
> ```c++
> #include
>
> int main(){}
> ```
> would produce
> ```
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.3.1/include/g++-v11/experimental/bits/
> f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
--- Comment #1 from Benda Xu ---
Hi Jonathan, I am involving you in the Cc thinking that you will have a better
idea on this issue. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105915
Bug ID: 105915
Summary: commit 42eff613 should be backported to gcc-11 for
bits/fs_path.h consistency
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Also known as gccrs Issue #1229.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105914
Bug ID: 105914
Summary: gccrs setting warn_unused_variable breaks thousands of
non-Rust tests
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
Bug ID: 105913
Summary: gccrs doesn't compile on 32-bit targets
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rust
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
index afd9222b5a2..c037668e7d8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
@@ -1112,6 +1112,10 @@ ipa_load_from_parm_agg (struct ipa_func_bod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Indeed volatile checks seems to be missing across ipa-prop code. Here is
smaller testcase:
__attribute__((noinline))
static int
test2(int a)
{
if (__builtin_constant_p (a))
__builtin_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105911
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53114&action=edit
gcc13-pr105911.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Some comments on the topic are in PR104702
Indeed, thanks for the pointer. I'll probably submit my fixlet though because
the current behavior of gimple_set_location is clearly broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some comments on the topic are in PR104702
61 matches
Mail list logo