https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110474
Bug ID: 110474
Summary: Vect: the epilog vect loop should have small VF if the
loop is unrolled during vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110473
Bug ID: 110473
Summary: vec_convert for aarch64 seems to lower to something
which should be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
I audited match.pd and only one other sticks out but I can't get get it to
happen.
The other one should have happened with:
```
typedef int v4si __attribute__ ((vector_size (4*sizeof(int;
typedef short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110449
--- Comment #2 from Hao Liu ---
That looks better than the currently generated code (it saves one "MOV"
instruction). Yes, it has the loop-carried dependency advantage. But it still
uses one more register for "8*step" (There may be a register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55409|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110472
Bug ID: 110472
Summary: 60% slowdown with fwrapv when using openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b059560146a93e5174262fef25e8b1aa39bb879
commit r13-7500-g8b059560146a93e5174262fef25e8b1aa39bb879
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110309
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecc1af1f5b2c0fbcfa8840c79aa6102d413850b2
commit r13-7499-gecc1af1f5b2c0fbcfa8840c79aa6102d413850b2
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a435939ba7e5e489a422071014f943c1a577bfe6
commit r12-9743-ga435939ba7e5e489a422071014f943c1a577bfe6
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110309
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f5591a9578b8cacda9d4c73a25d93598d68e028
commit r12-9742-g1f5591a9578b8cacda9d4c73a25d93598d68e028
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad1a3da97f7c4a85778f91b235a8d936bb1c829b
commit r11-10884-gad1a3da97f7c4a85778f91b235a8d936bb1c829b
Author: liuhongt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110309
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f59565f5dc2cdb5ac5a0b2b75404a36771232f86
commit r11-10883-gf59565f5dc2cdb5ac5a0b2b75404a36771232f86
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #11 from gococobu at 7art dot org ---
Thank you very much for your work, Andrew. I'll remove the files from the
posted URL now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.4.0, 11.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55422
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55422=edit
Reduced testcase
Attached is the reduced testcase (which was modified back to be valid).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> > >
> > > Reading symbols from
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> I get something similar with -O1 -march=znver1.
>
> The problem seems to have started in the last couple of days:
Yes it is exactly the same issue. Also it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110408
Brjd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
I get something similar with -O1 -march=znver1.
The problem seems to have started in the last couple of days:
../results.20230626.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc
../results.20230628.asan.ubsan/bin/gcc
during GIMPLE pass: fre
buildData/keep/in.14426.c: In function ‘func_63
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110144
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> >
> > Reading symbols from
> > /home/dmalcolm/build/gcc/testsuite/jit4/jit-debuginfo.o...Dwarf Error: wrong
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
>
> Reading symbols from
> /home/dmalcolm/build/gcc/testsuite/jit4/jit-debuginfo.o...Dwarf Error: wrong
> version in compilation unit header (is 5, should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> Do you have a testcase?
Attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #21 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 55421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55421=edit
test case broken by draft patch (at -O2 -mavx2 -mtune=haswell)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
With the above fix, the remaining failures are:
FAIL: FAIL
FAIL: FAIL
FAIL: FAIL
which are from testdebuginfo.c; I see:
Reading symbols from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78632
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like clang++ has -Wshadow-field for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
bug 25623 comment #1 is different since __builtin_abort makes initial guessed
profile inconsistent with the correlated conditionals.
That is reason why I added explicit __builtin_expect_with_probability to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25623
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110471
Bug ID: 110471
Summary: d: Don't generate code that throws exceptions when
compiling with `-fno-exceptions'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110470
Bug ID: 110470
Summary: Test gcc.c-torture/execute/pr105613.c ICEs in
prepare_cmp_insn on s390x with -march=z14
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110144
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c15905da939fd5cf6ccc3f19f3ab273525f34f98
commit r14-2173-gc15905da939fd5cf6ccc3f19f3ab273525f34f98
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gococobu from comment #7)
> Being a newbie, I don't want to add too much noise to this... but the ICE
> doesn't appear when `multivar def` doesn't have any initializer. If assigned
> (or with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #7 from gococobu at 7art dot org ---
Being a newbie, I don't want to add too much noise to this... but the ICE
doesn't appear when `multivar def` doesn't have any initializer. If assigned
(or with brace enclosed init), it does crash,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d88fd2e1d0720e6f892da9ff48e9a301a7ad0ad4
commit r14-2172-gd88fd2e1d0720e6f892da9ff48e9a301a7ad0ad4
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gococobu from comment #4)
> Sure, I uploaded it to https://x0x.pw/gcc_bug_110468/
>
> I think the code throwing the ICE is correct... but can't really attest to
> it.
>
> Please tell me if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #5 from gococobu at 7art dot org ---
(by the code being correct I mean in terms of standards, best practices, etc...
it definitely does compile in gcc++ 10.2 and 11.0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110252
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase (from PR 110446):
```
unsigned int a = 1387579096U;
void sinkandcheck(unsigned b) __attribute__((noipa));
void sinkandcheck(unsigned b)
{
if (a != b)
__builtin_abort();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #4 from gococobu at 7art dot org ---
Sure, I uploaded it to https://x0x.pw/gcc_bug_110468/
I think the code throwing the ICE is correct... but can't really attest to it.
Please tell me if you need something else.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwzeng at nuaa dot edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gococobu from comment #2)
> Thanks for your reply. Even compressed, it is too big for bugzilla (1.5M
> .xz, 2.1M .gzip)
>
> Maybe you can close this bug, and I'll resubmit when/if I get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104124
--- Comment #5 from Steven Munroe ---
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110469
Bug ID: 110469
Summary: Test gcc.dg/sms-compare-debug-1.c fails on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8736d6b14a4dfdfb58c80ccd398981b0fb5d00aa
commit r14-2171-g8736d6b14a4dfdfb58c80ccd398981b0fb5d00aa
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
--- Comment #2 from gococobu at 7art dot org ---
Thanks for your reply. Even compressed, it is too big for bugzilla (1.5M .xz,
2.1M .gzip)
Maybe you can close this bug, and I'll resubmit when/if I get a smaller
testcase for this specific bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110449
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> Created attachment 55418 [details]
> Slighty revised version of 3rd patch
>
> I've looked at gfc_conv_string_parameter, which I was not aware of.
> This can be used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 89442, which changed state.
Bug 89442 Summary: [concepts] missing "wrong number of template arguments"
error in requires-clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89442
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89442
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89442
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cf64d9cc2faf4001f037a50a350abd0f95f3e29
commit r14-2170-g4cf64d9cc2faf4001f037a50a350abd0f95f3e29
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107437
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cf64d9cc2faf4001f037a50a350abd0f95f3e29
commit r14-2170-g4cf64d9cc2faf4001f037a50a350abd0f95f3e29
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110468
Bug ID: 110468
Summary: internal compiler error in nothrow_spec_p (g++ > 11)
Product: gcc
Version: og12 (devel/omp/gcc-12)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110467
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Further context:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/622981.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110467
Bug ID: 110467
Summary: Bootstrap with Ada enabled fails with
--enable-host-pie
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem is that the patch above uses __vector which is wrong on Power.
However, with my patch:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-expressions.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-expressions.c
@@ -560,17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110466
Bug ID: 110466
Summary: jit.dg FAILs on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 110465 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
o.org/> for instructions.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:13261: crypto/rc5/libcrypto-lib-rc5_enc.o] Error 1
```
```
gcc (Gentoo Hardened 14.0.0 p, commit 6cb33e2f39e289ec4f25f845d8153053147c5c49)
14.0.0 20230628 (experimental) 9757e4440bd8755d327601a60a73d57d712583ed
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Softwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #34 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this should be fixed now. I'll let @Iain Sandoe confirm, as there are
likely other fixes he has relating to the testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55418=edit
Slighty revised version of 3rd patch
I've looked at gfc_conv_string_parameter, which I was not aware of.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110406
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #33 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2eeda5652438fe783d4e3878139481a1b8606b6
commit r13-7496-gf2eeda5652438fe783d4e3878139481a1b8606b6
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110406
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2eeda5652438fe783d4e3878139481a1b8606b6
commit r13-7496-gf2eeda5652438fe783d4e3878139481a1b8606b6
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110175
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|c++-lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> It seems we should be using loff_t here.
For the benefit of the bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110453
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is called a tentative declaration.
A simplified definition of this can be found at
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/extern
(with the references to the C standard on the bottom of the page).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc 13 crashes with %rename |[13/14 Regression] gcc 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c201cd3be0d9ab887fafb0c33a9fc287c405c21c
commit r14-2169-gc201cd3be0d9ab887fafb0c33a9fc287c405c21c
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110406
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c201cd3be0d9ab887fafb0c33a9fc287c405c21c
commit r14-2169-gc201cd3be0d9ab887fafb0c33a9fc287c405c21c
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110464
Bug ID: 110464
Summary: Improve -Wdiv-by-zero
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It seems we should be using loff_t here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a better testcase which fails even at -O1 and does not depend on the
vectorizer:
```
typedef int v4si __attribute__ ((vector_size (4*sizeof(int;
typedef short v4hi __attribute__ ((vector_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55417
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55417=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110463
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55392|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Oh, duh, it's libstdc++. I'm not sure there's an alternative to typedefing it
then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> On musl, off_t and friends are always 64-bit (i.e. it's natively LFS, no
> need for largefile source functions/types). In musl-1.2.4, they dropped the
> typedefs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110463
Bug ID: 110463
Summary: Mutable subobject is usable in a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This would "fix" it, but only by disabling copy_file_range use with musl:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
@@ -5160,7 +5160,7 @@ dnl
linux*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The system call is defined in terms of off64_t. What type does musl use for
> copy_file_range(2)?
/usr/include/unistd.h:197:ssize_t copy_file_range(int, off_t *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Looks like we already AC_SYS_LARGEFILE in libstdc++-v3/configure.ac, so this
should be as simple as just using off_t instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The system call is defined in terms of off64_t. What type does musl use for
copy_file_range(2)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55415
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55415=edit
build.log.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110462
Bug ID: 110462
Summary: [14 regression] Build failure with musl-1.2.4
(filesystem/ops-common.h:377:5: error: 'off64_t' was
not declared in this scope; did you mean 'off_t'?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110461
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think it is:
/* Try to fold (type) X op CST -> (type) (X op ((type-x) CST))
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
