https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376
Bug ID: 112376
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c was
not adjusted for aarch64 case
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112375
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This simple patch fixes the issue but I have not tested it yet, basically it
moves the ins case before the zip:
```
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
index 5fd7063663
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|vget_set_lane_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112375
Bug ID: 112375
Summary: vget_set_lane_1.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-04
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|stringify operator #|stringify operator #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|aarch64: SME is still not |aarch64: SME should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112361
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The patch that caused this one, also causes a bootstrap comparison failure with
--with-arch=skylake-avx512, see PR 112374 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-linux-gnu
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|--with-arch=native |[14 Regression]
|boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testing with `--with-arch=skylake`, if that works will try with
`skylake-avx512`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
Bug ID: 112374
Summary: --with-arch=native bootstrap is broken on `Xeon(R)
D-2166NT`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] ICE when|[14 regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98541
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e9ee44d96e5bda8808dd9d8ccf58d2525383f6b
commit r14-5115-g6e9ee44d96e5bda8808dd9d8ccf58d2525383f6b
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108321
--- Comment #5 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
This also appears in GCC 14 for riscv64 targets with the same output pattern
above. After a quick comparison with the expected output, this output is
missing
> contract viol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5340f48b7639fcc874f64aac214f9ef9ae43d43e
commit r14-5114-g5340f48b7639fcc874f64aac214f9ef9ae43d43e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104320
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50755
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110703
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109450
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109450
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 109970, which changed state.
Bug 109970 Summary: -Wstringop-overflow should work with parameter forward
declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109970
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109970
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112373
Bug ID: 112373
Summary: cppcheck: libcpp/charset.cc: 3 * obvious performance
issue
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70418
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91038
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112368
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Could have been fixed by 8c40b72036c967fbb1d1150515cf70aec382f0a2
But the set of failures on Linux and Darwin are not exactly the same, so we
will see in the next regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101604
Bug 101604 depends on bug 98536, which changed state.
Bug 98536 Summary: warning with -Wvla-parameter for unspecified bound getting
specified later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98536
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98536
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
--- Comment #4 from Giuliano Procida ---
The provided example was exactly my original test case.
It's part of our test suite for
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/stg/.
I'm currently running multiple versions of GCC and Clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84510
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111708
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oremanj at mit dot edu
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Giuliano Procida from comment #2)
> The symbols are not aliased (which is what I thought might have happened
> with very aggressive optimisations). If they had been aliased, it would be
> much h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112368
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I was getting similar failures on x86_64-linux-gnu for the last week of October
too. I wonder if this is now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
--- Comment #2 from Giuliano Procida ---
The symbols are not aliased (which is what I thought might have happened with
very aggressive optimisations). If they had been aliased, it would be much
harder to give the symbols types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
Bug ID: 112372
Summary: GCC omits function location in DWARF at higher
optimisation levels
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110769
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Shaohua Li from comment #5)
> I probably bisected to the wrong commit. I bisected it again and it should
> be r14-2675-gef28aadad6e
Right, but that does not mean the underlying issue is not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Potential fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.cc b/gcc/fortran/match.cc
index f848e52be4c..9e3571d3dbe 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.cc
@@ -5064,6 +5064,7 @@ gfc_match_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> The code from comment#2 and from comment#3 no longer calls foo
> with current trunk, r14-5108-g751fc7bcdcdf25 .
>
> Now, to see which commit fixed it...
My bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:413ac2c8608cd0378955af27f69e45274b025b32
commit r14-5111-g413ac2c8608cd0378955af27f69e45274b025b32
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 56504 [details]
> > Hti5.cpp.ii
> >
> > Kostadin started a reduction earlier and got this. It needs s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
The code from comment#2 and from comment#3 no longer calls foo
with current trunk, r14-5108-g751fc7bcdcdf25 .
Now, to see which commit fixed it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112288
--- Comment #9 from Fabio Alemagna ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> The issue was probably latent before r6-6830. The testcase is kind of
> strange,
It's the "friend injection" technique. In this case, it's used to create a
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Created attachment 56504 [details]
> Hti5.cpp.ii
>
> Kostadin started a reduction earlier and got this. It needs some cleaning up.
btw, his was reduced from the same o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 56504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56504&action=edit
Hti5.cpp.ii
Kostadin started a reduction earlier and got this. It needs some cleaning up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111766
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112288
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
The issue was probably latent before r6-6830. The testcase is kind of strange,
e.g. 'slot_allocated' is defined within 'allocate_slot' instead of within
'slot', which would arguably be more natural given th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
This is one possible way to read it. But as written, I think one can easily
understand it the other way, because calloc never mentions requested total size
but only about space for an array of objects of s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The wording refers to "the size requested", which I consider to be the
product of two arguments in the case of calloc - not a particular argument
to calloc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111766
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111766
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111766
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ab79a40b546a1470abaf76bec74c63e9990fe47
commit r14-5110-g7ab79a40b546a1470abaf76bec74c63e9990fe47
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #9 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> I believe "size requested" refers to the product nmemb * size in the case
> of calloc, so getting the arguments the "wrong" way round does not affect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112263
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
--- Comment #6 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> Maybe related to PR112263 but I'm not sure.
Can confirm that with patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112263#c7 the stacktrace.cc
testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I believe "size requested" refers to the product nmemb * size in the case
of calloc, so getting the arguments the "wrong" way round does not affect
the required alignment. The point of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111950
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
Right, I've tried to apply that patch to my early break patch series and many
of the tests fail, all the same way in compute_live_loop_exits.
I guess we'll have a conflict here. So I'll post my patches wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Possible culprit:
ifunction.m4 has this code:
retarray->base_addr = xmallocarray (alloc_size, sizeof (rtype_name));
if (alloc_size == 0)
{
/* Make sure we have a zero-sized arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112370
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Grund ---
Created attachment 56503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56503&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
If dim == 3, the ubound and shape are (/ 9, 3, 7 /) as expected.
That is, the problem only arises if the resulting array is empty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #0)
> i = 1
> (...)
> r = sum(a, dim=i)
If i is inlined, that is
r = sum(a, dim=1)
the shape and ubound are (/ 3, 0, 7 /) as expected.
The difference is p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
Bug ID: 112371
Summary: Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction
intrinsics if the array is empty
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112370
Bug ID: 112370
Summary: -Wfree-nonheap-object in std::vector dtor on
sapphirerapids with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
||
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 56502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56502&action=edit
patch
Remaining and polished patch. Will ICE the following testcases I added:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/20231103-1.f90 -O (internal compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112365
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112365
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|[14 regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, now I understand what you've been saying about the postcondition.
Yes, but the compiler doesn't know the postcondition, it's just words in the
standard, so not visible to the optimization passes.
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Bug ID: 112369
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building webkit-gtk with
-march=raptorlake
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111950
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Bootstrap & regtest is fine but CPU 2017 has two ICEs I'm reducing right now.
Testing the vectorizable_live_operation simplification right now, will push new
test-coverage and defer the rest until next wee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112368
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112368
Bug ID: 112368
Summary: Darwin failures for avx256_move_by_pieces and
avx256_store_by_pieces
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111950
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 56500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56500&action=edit
patch
Some of the "fixup"s done earlier get in the way of simplifying things.
Specifically
/* If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111066
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||x86_64-apple-darwin21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110769
--- Comment #5 from Shaohua Li ---
(In reply to Shaohua Li from comment #3)
> I tried to bisect it and it was bisected to r14-2674-gd0de3bf9175, which is
> different from the bisection point in bug110641
I probably bisected to the wrong commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #20 from Martin Uecker ---
Ah, this is how it works. Thanks!
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo