https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116308
Bug ID: 116308
Summary: ICE while compiling _Atomic _Float16 for riscv64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111236
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Linaro flagged up this failure, when I submitted the patch for approval.
Following some correspondence with Thiago Bauermann, this conclusion was
arrived at:
"I ran your patch through a different CI loop that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116309
Bug ID: 116309
Summary: ICE unrecognizable insn while compiling pr111821.c for
s390
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116309
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116310
Bug ID: 116310
Summary: default equality operator== selects not-const
conversion operator
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116311
Bug ID: 116311
Summary: GCC accepts invalid program with conversion function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #152 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #140)
> Created attachment 58860 [details]
> testcase for attachment 58831 [details], 58832, 58833, 58836
>
> The attached test case, when compiled with 'sh-elf-gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116312
Bug ID: 116312
Summary: Use LDP instead of LD2 on for Advanced SIMD when
possible
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|default equality operator== |default equality operator==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #153 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58886
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58886&action=edit
a revised patch for c#135 and c#139
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #139)
If we try to keep the old be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116312
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but we could implement it as a simple final assembly output template change
>for minimal invasion.
No you can't since ldp and ld2 mean 2 different things.
ld2 is basically a perm to unmix the two registe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116312
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116072
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 116072, which changed state.
Bug 116072 Summary: [15 Regression] 4.5% slowdown of 447.dealII on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116072
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174
--- Comment #7 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I confirmed that the patch from comment #6 addresses the build warnings I see
in the kernel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116313
Bug ID: 116313
Summary: -Wsequence-point false positive with auto and/or
__auto_type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
corentinjabot at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corentinjabot at gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Would someone please explain what has to be done?
It's likely more than just
#define TARGET_LRA_P hook_bool_void_true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I _thought_ https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/reload had more instructions but it only
talks about the target hook to start with.
Segher?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116292
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Should I upload the real testcase I hit it on in this bug (from
'fortran-stdlib' https://bugs.gentoo.org/937358), or file another bug instead?
I have no idea if it's the same issue, other than it ICEing in the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115464
Natanael Copa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncopa at alpinelinux dot org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116313
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
The warning for typeof in this context seems bogus as well because it follows
the evaluation rules for sizeof:
“
The operand of ‘typeof’ is evaluated for its side effects if and only
if it is an expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113035
Dusan Stojkovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dusan.stojko...@rt-rk.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Please provide preprocessed sources for the bad TU and then try to extract the
issue into a standalone file we can compile & execute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116313
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
p has a variably modified type, isn't it?. Its type is 'int (*)[2 * i]'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116313
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
Right, missed that, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...to be more specific:
TARGET_CANNOT_SUBSTITUTE_MEM_EQUIV_P explains the function of the hook from the
perspective of someone who is implementing a register allocator, but there is
no explanation whethe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116314
Bug ID: 116314
Summary: ICE after fixing PR116142 and implementing
vec_widen_smult_{odd,even}_M for LoongArch
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96265
--- Comment #12 from Jan André Reuter ---
> Hi,
> Yes, those two errors are expected.
> I posted RFC discussion about AArch64/nvptx offloading issues here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-July/244466.html
>
> For the unrecognized comman
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...more questions:
What's the connexion between TARGET_REGISTER_PRIORITY and
ADJUST_REG_ALLOC_ORDER / reg_alloc_order[].
What about reload_completed? Does semantics stay the same? What about
reg_renum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116287
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e7088dbe3bf87108a89558ffb7df36df3469206
commit r15-2847-g6e7088dbe3bf87108a89558ffb7df36df3469206
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116292
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116307
--- Comment #2 from Kacper Michajłow ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note I don't think the warning is not incorrect. Nor I don't think unrolling
> by 3 is wrong either.
Could you explain why unrolling by 3 is not wrong in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113348
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115783
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||waffl3x at protonmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116287
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b0dd13efca673355dd2a0c5646452c2f23f86029
commit r14-10575-gb0dd13efca673355dd2a0c5646452c2f23f86029
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116287
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|14.2.1, 15.0|14.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110254
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116289
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12ba140ee93adc56a3426f0c6c05f4d6c6a3d08e
commit r13-8967-g12ba140ee93adc56a3426f0c6c05f4d6c6a3d08e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113063
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12ba140ee93adc56a3426f0c6c05f4d6c6a3d08e
commit r13-8967-g12ba140ee93adc56a3426f0c6c05f4d6c6a3d08e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116313
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely what happens is that the sequence point warning looks through a
SAVE_EXPR which contains `i` but does not realize that is stabilized long time
before that expression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113063
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aa89badc8c16637e0d9a39a08da7d18e209631b
commit r15-2848-g4aa89badc8c16637e0d9a39a08da7d18e209631b
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116289
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aa89badc8c16637e0d9a39a08da7d18e209631b
commit r15-2848-g4aa89badc8c16637e0d9a39a08da7d18e209631b
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116289
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116307
--- Comment #3 from Kacper Michajłow ---
(In reply to Kacper Michajłow from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Note I don't think the warning is not incorrect. Nor I don't think unrolling
> > by 3 is wrong either.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115464
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Natanael Copa from comment #14)
> I have backported the following commits to Alpine Linux:
>
> - 0970ff46ba63 aarch64: Fix invalid nested subregs [PR115464]
> - 1474a8eead4a aarch64: Use force
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113063
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|13.4
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115090
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115783
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jose at serrall dot es
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #32 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #30)
> blocks have support from 10.6 [Apple gcc-4.2] (although there is/was 'after
> market' support for 10.5).
So blocks presumably should work in Rosetta then? Or th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88624
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116292
--- Comment #9 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 8/9/24 03:30, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Should I upload the real testcase I hit it on in this bug (from
> 'fortran-stdlib' https://bugs.gentoo.org/937358), or file another bug instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116260
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Thiago Jung Bauermann from comment #1)
> Hello Sam,
>
> I mostly work with the GDB testsuite, so I'm not very familiar with
> GCC-specific details of DejaGNU and the sum files, so advance warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115806
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:786ebbd6058540b2110da16a693f0c582c11413c
commit r15-2855-g786ebbd6058540b2110da16a693f0c582c11413c
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115806
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114952
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I sent
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/3ebbe7a4e93a5ddc3a26e2e11d329801d7c8de6b.1723217044.git@gentoo.org/T/#u.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106931
Kacper Michajłow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 106931, which changed state.
Bug 106931 Summary: [12 Regression] -Wstringop-overflow false positive -O3
-fno-tree-vectorize with loop unrolling since r12-3300-gece28da924ddda8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299
--- Comment #7 from Ryan ---
Created attachment 58887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58887&action=edit
Error in splitting trick when optimizing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116315
Bug ID: 116315
Summary: [14/15 regression] False-positive
-Wmaybe-uninitialized at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299
--- Comment #8 from Ryan ---
The assembly generated on godbolt for ppc64el is indeed different with the
"volatile" included. It may be the default that -O3 is supposed to aggressively
optimize this away, but the spltting trick works for architec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116315
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 116315, which changed state.
Bug 116315 Summary: [14/15 regression] False-positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized at
-O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116315
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93192
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Probably fixed for gcc-14.1.0 by e0c1476d5d7c450b1b16a40364cea4e91237ea93. The
original proposed patch no longer applies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...more questions:
TARGET_IRA_CHANGE_PSEUDO_ALLOCNO_CLASS: Same issue: This hook can change a
reload class. The purpose is clear for regalloc guys, but when and d why and
how would I do it for a specifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116315
--- Comment #2 from Leandro Nini ---
Ah I see, thanks!
I suppose the compiler is unable to figure out that we're using fixed values
for fi.opamp_voltage_size. Just surprised it pops up only at -O3.
Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116266
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, we do not want that.
There is a huge difference between MSR[VEC] and MSR[VSX]. People can just
write
out what they actually mean. TARGET_ALTIVEC and TARGET_VSX.
The insns here are mostly Vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
> Would someone please explain what has to be done?
>
> It's likely more than just
>
> #define TARGET_LRA_P hook_bool_void_true
That is what you start w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116170
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is that strong enough? A const_vector (or a const_anything) as lhs of a set
does not make sense at all. How did we even try this, is some more generic
thing broken?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103660
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Two more cases, this time with XOR (^):
```
int min7(int a, int b) {
const int c = a < b;
return (c * a) ^ ((1 - c) * b);
}
int min8(int a, int b) {
const bool c = a < b;
return (c * a) ^ (!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116316
Bug ID: 116316
Summary: incorrect code with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Bug ID: 116317
Summary: [modules] checking ICE in type_node, at
cp/module.cc:8693 on stream out
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116260
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Thanks for the additional information, indeed in our CI we do not run
validations for several "variations", so it's not surprising this case is not
handled very well.
So you suggest having one manifest pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116316
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> :13:6: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
> strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
>13 | *(size_t *)(&(array_annotated-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58890
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58890&action=edit
Slightly more reduced
I removed most of the concepts except for one (sequence_concept) which seems
needed for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ce3874b3c2fdd76f506005cb1171a732af7c807
commit r15-2857-g5ce3874b3c2fdd76f506005cb1171a732af7c807
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
commit r15-2858-g9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58890|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/GaloisIn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #17)
> The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
>
> commit r15-2858-g9e4da946c4263a4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58889|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58893&action=edit
Cleaned up and removed the `namespace detail`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58894&action=edit
Reduced slightly more removing the inner class from reverse_adaptor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58894|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90960
--- Comment #4 from Alisdair Meredith ---
I now believe my original bug report is invalid, due to a rarely consulted
paragraph of the standard, [temp.spec.general]p8.
If a function declaration acquired its function type through a dependent type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116283
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4e1290e5d603984e9b410c7d4cf21a9ffbd68fd
commit r15-2860-gd4e1290e5d603984e9b410c7d4cf21a9ffbd68fd
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Aug 9 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116283
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116318
Bug ID: 116318
Summary: RISC-V: Miscompile at -O1 with -fwhole-program
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116318
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
