https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112568
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kostadin Shishmanov from comment #7)
> Created attachment 56612 [details]
> bad object file
>
> I've attached the bad object file (the one from the compilation with the
> "bad" commit). Going t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112568
--- Comment #7 from Kostadin Shishmanov ---
Created attachment 56612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56612&action=edit
bad object file
I've attached the bad object file (the one from the compilation with the "bad"
commit).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112547
--- Comment #7 from Haochen Jiang ---
I have got a same binary w/ and w/o my commit with the options if nothing went
wrong.
Seems we need more investigation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
x4;
x7 = (unsigned int) x6;
if (x7 <= 268435455U)
abort ();
exit (0);
}
int
main()
{
short unsigned int x, y;
x = -5;
y = -10;
foo (&x, &y);
}
## gcc and gdb version ##
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 14.0.0 20231116 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Softwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106343
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
Bug 112325 depends on bug 112579, which changed state.
Bug 112579 Summary: bb vectorizer failed to reduction sum += inv >>
{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106343
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 112579 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 112579, which changed state.
Bug 112579 Summary: bb vectorizer failed to reduction sum += inv >>
{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #4 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> or normally, it should splitted into groups size 4 + 4 + 3 and vectorize for
> 2 group size 4.
/* Try to break the group up into pieces. */
if (kind == slp_inst_kind_store
Currently, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #3 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to liuhongt from comment #1)
> test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D) >> 1, type of def:
> internal
> test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D), type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #2 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Got vectorized after change source code to
unsigned
foo (unsigned * restrict s, unsigned qh, unsigned * restrict qs) {
unsigned int sumi = 0;
sumi += (qh >> 16);
sumi += (qh >> 1);
sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #1 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D) >> 1, type of def:
internal
test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D), type of def:
external
test.c:28:8: note: vect_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111601
Jeevitha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeevitha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112568
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the thing to look for the placement of vzeroupper. That is what mode
switching is used for inside the x86 back-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the thing to look for the placement of vzeroupper. That is what mode
switching is used for inside the x86 back-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112568
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The first thing to start with is figure out which file is being miscompiled.
Once we have that it might be easier to track down what is going wrong (we can
even look at the RTL dumps before and after to unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
* https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/gcc-llvm-x86/libLLVMCodeGen.so.17-bad.xz
*
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/gcc-llvm-x86/libLLVMCodeGen.so.17-good.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112581
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It might be one of the x86 specific target patches ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112581
Bug ID: 112581
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
(generated code hangs)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Bug ID: 112580
Summary: [14 Regression]: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-4_b.C
et al; ICE tree check: expected class 'type', have
'declaration'
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
The bad object is lib/libLLVMCodeGen.so.17, it seems. Swapping it with a good
one & rebuilding w/ ninja makes that test pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
It's a bit easier with the following as you get many split libLLVM* linked into
unittests/CodeGen/CodeGenTests (which is a convenient reproducer I'm running):
```
-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON
-DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107723
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110606
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
Bug ID: 112579
Summary: bb vectorizer failed to reduction sum += inv >>
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109422
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112547
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
With -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON, I get:
```
Failed Tests (8):
LLVM-Unit :: CodeGen/./CodeGenTests/75/134
LLVM-Unit :: CodeGen/./CodeGenTests/76/134
LLVM-Unit :: CodeGen/./CodeGenTests/77/134
LLVM-Unit :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112578
Bug ID: 112578
Summary: LoongArch: Wrong code -with -mlsx
-fno-fp-int-builtin-inexact
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e62dd770afde1745c547d05c8163ee5cd639464b
commit r13-8077-ge62dd770afde1745c547d05c8163ee5cd639464b
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
commit r13-8079-gd237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102191
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
commit r13-8079-gd237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
commit r13-8079-gd237e7b291ff52095d600e6489a54b4ba8aaf608
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
commit r12-9990-g7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102191
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
commit r12-9990-g7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
commit r12-9990-g7fae9873a74c7a5a62044bb6a4cde8e3ac1a5e5d
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65388a996d7dfcdd22ff2d191458699d1cacf254
commit r12-9988-g65388a996d7dfcdd22ff2d191458699d1cacf254
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Attached a build script. I'm testing on the llvm-17.0.5 tag. All tests pass
with r14-5355-g3cd3a09b3f91a1 reverted.
Script to be run inside a git checkout of llvm-17.0.5:
```
#!/usr/bin/env bash
: ${CC:=gcc}
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e9279fadbd1c673c875b9d20261d2de0473f63f
commit r14-5542-g9e9279fadbd1c673c875b9d20261d2de0473f63f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112478
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112577
Bug ID: 112577
Summary: aarch64_class_max_nregs mishandles 64-bit structure
modes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112576
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56611
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56611&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
With just
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -7378,6 +7378,8 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
r = build_constructor (TREE_TYPE (t), NULL);
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112576
Bug ID: 112576
Summary: "unrecognizable insn" in libgccjit when using some
target-specific builtins
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112575
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56610&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112574
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56609&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112575
Bug ID: 112575
Summary: Segfault in libgccjit due to not cleaning up some
target specific cache
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112574
Bug ID: 112574
Summary: Add support for bfloat16
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112573
--- Comment #2 from Julius Werner ---
Sorry, I don't really know what reassociation means in this context. Are you
saying that the behavior is WAI?
Note that the problem also exists when you write the accesses in h() as:
*(a + (y + 3))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112573
Bug ID: 112573
Summary: Suboptimal code generation with `-fdata-sections` on
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112570
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111661
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 56608
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56608&action=edit
'pr111661.c'
Before getting the Fortran case to work, let's indeed first look into some
conceptually corresp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112570
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56546|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112568
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112572
Bug ID: 112572
Summary: [14 regression] LLVM miscompiled since
r14-5355-g3cd3a09b3f91a1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111844
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> It seems to me this is a task for SRA (again...) which should be more
> forgiving to select stmts requiring address-taking of locals but only
> when they are n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112374
--- Comment #47 from Robin Dapp ---
And, just to confirm: Testsuite is unchanged on riscv with your patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112567
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The fix allowed me to build linux-6.6.1 successfully with current gcc-master.
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111557
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112571
--- Comment #1 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another example:
enum X : typeof(enum X { A });
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112571
Bug ID: 112571
Summary: ICE with nested redefinition of enum
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111557
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Edwin Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a671095c208c7cf5eb934b6a31bd9fb6f6640a6b
commit r14-5540-ga671095c208c7cf5eb934b6a31bd9fb6f6640a6b
Author: Edwin Lu
Date: Wed Nov 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ebc7e0b0ddf4679cf09ed6836fac30ca01d3ba0
commit r14-5539-g8ebc7e0b0ddf4679cf09ed6836fac30ca01d3ba0
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112566
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> ctz(ext(x)) == ctz(x) if UB on zero,
In one direction, this should also be true for a narrowing conversion
(changing ct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109881
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109881
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1865bca25e1d275853aed9f2780a300c6db8fd1c
commit r12-9985-g1865bca25e1d275853aed9f2780a300c6db8fd1c
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:36:44 2023 +0100
Fix internal error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109881
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5e1cb7e501350ea339db44ca5a33704d817a6fb
commit r13-8075-gc5e1cb7e501350ea339db44ca5a33704d817a6fb
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:36:44 2023 +0100
Fix internal error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #50 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2934eb6ae92471484469d8ddd039eb34ef400b1
commit r14-5538-gd2934eb6ae92471484469d8ddd039eb34ef400b1
Author: John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109881
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d8b41bb0512947ce13636fc460ea9fb8dea419a
commit r14-5537-g4d8b41bb0512947ce13636fc460ea9fb8dea419a
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:36:44 2023 +0100
Fix internal error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, this is a bug; null_pointer_constant_p gets this right, but
convert_for_assignment fails to handle enumerations and booleans as
possible null pointer constants. Other contexts such a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #4)
> The lack of this feature is motivating CPython to rely on LLVM for its JIT
> in future releases.
Which is interesting because GCC JIT supports this already. Jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112566
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
To get guaranteed tail-calls to work you need to adjust the calling convention
for the caller as well as the callee. Things are trivial as long as parameters
always fit in registers. With parameters on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111703
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112564
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112564
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23725aa53bd264941c4fb228227736be4da59761
commit r14-5536-g23725aa53bd264941c4fb228227736be4da59761
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100903
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Drat ... so that's why I didn't do it already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110813
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Julian's patch for this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630996.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112365
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fa32aeaa6da4ef9566d98a6fb541dd7427d7d36
commit r14-5534-g0fa32aeaa6da4ef9566d98a6fb541dd7427d7d36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112570
Bug ID: 112570
Summary: Some of the regression hunt page looks out of date
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100903
--- Comment #11 from M Welinder ---
>/home/jwakely/gcc/14/include/c++/14.0.0/compare:160:5: note: declared here
> 160 | operator<=>(partial_ordering, __cmp_cat::__not_literal_zero auto)
> = delete;
> | ^~~~
I don't think we c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112526
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 56606
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56606&action=edit
reduced_smaller.c
Here's a smaller (cvise'd) C testcase. I can add it to the testsuite if it's
ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112567
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112567
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06ff410e0dea135d41bc5f7a9a007d7ba6822dbf
commit r14-5533-g06ff410e0dea135d41bc5f7a9a007d7ba6822dbf
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102995
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104802
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98614
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98614
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:063d987af0e7a8329559fb116337bdb8ab20d8eb
commit r14-5532-g063d987af0e7a8329559fb116337bdb8ab20d8eb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104802
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:063d987af0e7a8329559fb116337bdb8ab20d8eb
commit r14-5532-g063d987af0e7a8329559fb116337bdb8ab20d8eb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
