https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #191 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #188)
> (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #187)
>
> Looking at the RTL dumps in -mlra case, there is an instruction to set r4 in
> the postreload dump:
>
> (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #190 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Another two segfaults are observed when building libstdc++v3.
Compiling Segfault in
libsupc++/dyncast.cctree-ssa-reassoc.cc
src/c++11/locale-inst.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #189 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
There is another segfault during compiling libgcc/fp-bit.c.
In that case, the 2nd visit to tree-ssa-sccvn.cc:3567 in vn_reference_lookup_3
FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (rhs, j, vro)
vr->operands[i + 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #188 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #187)
Looking at the RTL dumps in -mlra case, there is an instruction to set r4 in
the postreload dump:
(insn 579 573 580 49 (set (reg:SI 4 r4)
(reg/f:S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #187 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 58989
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58989&action=edit
a testcase for wrong code which is pre-processed gcc/gimple-fold.cc
One other segfault is seen when compili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116475, which changed state.
Bug 116475 Summary: autovect: may be optimized for min/max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116475
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syq at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116475
Bug ID: 116475
Summary: autovect: may be optimized for min/max
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> In my experience a backtrace is not sufficient to debug compiler issues.
It might not be sufficient on its own, but it'd at least be an improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ppc64le: LTO ICE during |[14/15 Regression] LTO ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> fail which look similar to the aarch64 fails (I have no idea if the patch
> helped for those).
The aarch64 ones still fail. And yes they look very similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58988
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58988&action=edit
non-reduced preprocessed source
This is just the needed 2 preprocessed source to reproduce the failure:
pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the good news is I am able to reproduce it on the trunk (on cfarm29 which is
powerpc64le):
```
pinskia@cfarm29:~/src/t$ ~/ugcc/bin/g++ -shared -fPIC -g -O3 -flto *.ii
lto-wrapper: warning: using serial co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116469
--- Comment #3 from Arvid Jonasson ---
Modified Example 2 with non-aggregate types:
--
#include
#include
#include
template
struct Inner {
Inner() {}
unsigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112666
--- Comment #7 from Arvid Jonasson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
>
> C does not have a user-provided default constructor, so value-initialization
> means:
>
> "- the object is zero-initialized and the semantic constraints f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115054
--- Comment #7 from Trevor Gross ---
(In reply to connor horman from comment #6)
> According to: https://cs61.seas.harvard.edu/site/pdf/x86-64-abi-20210928.pdf
>
> > Arguments of types _Float16, float, double, _Decimal32, _Decimal64 and
> > __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am not sure if complex lowering should do some simple DCE or if it matters
> if it does not do it.
Note complex lowering now does the simple DCE after r15-312
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116469
--- Comment #2 from Arvid Jonasson ---
Quick update: I initially overlooked that the classes were aggregate types,
which don't require zero-initialization. However, the issue persists with
non-aggregate types. To demonstrate this, I've modified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong offset format when|Wrong offset format when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116474
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the parser thinks typedef_t starts the name of a nested function ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|GCC somehow conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
And the other issue could be this:
@@ -28976,7 +28982,7 @@ dwarf2out_set_ignored_loc (unsigned int line, unsigned
int column,
dw_fde_ref fde = cfun->fde;
fde->ignored_debug = false;
- set_cur_line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116372
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9f5e23aba1a6f4ec32f1147b340a8145d827da9
commit r15-3138-ga9f5e23aba1a6f4ec32f1147b340a8145d827da9
Author: Manolis Tsamis
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116405
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9f5e23aba1a6f4ec32f1147b340a8145d827da9
commit r15-3138-ga9f5e23aba1a6f4ec32f1147b340a8145d827da9
Author: Manolis Tsamis
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116358
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9e2d0ec6eabc2a6b8c00984b2b2bc48565bb99b
commit r15-3137-gc9e2d0ec6eabc2a6b8c00984b2b2bc48565bb99b
Author: Manolis Tsamis
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks.
I asked for some help in testing this new attribute at gcc-help:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2024-August/143676.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113457
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Trying to emulate |Nesting coroutine
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk with a slightly different (but functionally identical) patch
than posted above. I'll let it sit there for a few days to ensure we didn't
expose any other issues with the patch before backpor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e68c3df1540c5bafbb47343698bf4e270333fdb
commit r15-3136-g6e68c3df1540c5bafbb47343698bf4e270333fdb
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116466
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116474
Bug ID: 116474
Summary: GCC somehow confuses "unsigned __int128_t" with a
nested function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Thanks Jeff for this advice,
It could be that this are two different issues, but
The ft32-issue might be solved by this completely untested patch:
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
@@ -13019,9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115054
connor horman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chorman64 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116473
Bug ID: 116473
Summary: std::ranges::to vs constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116439
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> It's correct but certainly weird that the current rules mean the second to
> last decltype(auto) is invalid, because decltype(source) is S& but the
> closure mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116439
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Ah yes, that's PR115504 I think. The original fix was incorrectly stripping
references from the captured variable type which was fixed for 14.2 by
r15-1631.
It's correct but certainly weird that the curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106606
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 101367, which changed state.
Bug 101367 Summary: [coroutines] destructor for capture in lambda temporary
operand to co_yield expression called twice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101367
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109918
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114865
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2024-04-26 00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58984|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116439
--- Comment #3 from Valentin Tolmer ---
Digging a little bit into it, there is definitely a bug that was in 14.1 only
(and got fixed in 14.2):
struct S {
S() = default;
S(const S&) = delete;
};
int main() {
S source;
S& source2 = sourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116472
Bug ID: 116472
Summary: Wrong offset format when generating assembly with -S
and -masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
--- Comment #4 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Created attachment 58984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58984&action=edit
patch v1
Attaching a patch for this + PR108846 , since the testcases basically cover
both in one go.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
--- Comment #3 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
> You might be right that we never needed it in ranges::copy because it's
> already constrained correctly.
So would it be OK to just remove the static_assert from the range-based
algorithms?
> N.B. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116361
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb51e0b236c7d492af2033582230e78d8b55290f
commit r15-3135-gcb51e0b236c7d492af2033582230e78d8b55290f
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 23 05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5)
> but one thing is funnny, in the bad asm
> both symbols.LM19367 and .LM19368 appear to be in the same section:
>
>
> .section.text.unlikely
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
They are in different sections:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-3 tmp]$ cat foo.s
.text
.align 2
.p2align 4
.LM19367:
pushl %ebp
.section.text.unlikely
.LM19368:
nop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108619
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk only so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
As of r15-3128-gde1923f9f4d534 now
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-vector-complex-float.c scan-assembler-not
vfmadd[123]*ph[ t]
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-vector-complex-float.c scan-assembler-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115939
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591b71993f15ed95eb38f3314f3d9ac159b9d051
commit r15-3130-g591b71993f15ed95eb38f3314f3d9ac159b9d051
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108619
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cf51d7516b92b352c358c14ab4e456ae53c3371
commit r15-3132-g8cf51d7516b92b352c358c14ab4e456ae53c3371
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:125bab23ad75449333983c9389898c5b92b3aa0d
commit r15-3129-g125bab23ad75449333983c9389898c5b92b3aa0d
Author: Giovanni Bajo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115098
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de1923f9f4d5344694c22ca883aeb15caf635734
commit r15-3128-gde1923f9f4d5344694c22ca883aeb15caf635734
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #0)
> It's also worth noting that the static_assert is into a if constexpr(
> __memcpyable<_Iter, _Out>::__value) branch. memcpyable basically means
> trivially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That assertion originated in std::copy, where we needed to ensure that
std::copy would be ill-formed for non-assignable types when we take the memcpy
branch. That code was removed from std::copy in r13-637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a35dd276cbf6236e08bcf6e56e62c2be41cf6e3c
commit r15-3127-ga35dd276cbf6236e08bcf6e56e62c2be41cf6e3c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115098
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b25b101bc380004b82e25d2b1ef306856c75d864
commit r15-3124-gb25b101bc380004b82e25d2b1ef306856c75d864
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
>
> --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> I've tested the change and it fixes PR11631
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||xtensa
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think
a - ((b * -c) + (d * -e)) -> a + (b * c) + (d * e)
is a good simplification to be made, but it's difficult to do this with
canonicalization only. Like a * -b -> -(a * b) as the negate might
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116471
Bug ID: 116471
Summary: Strange/bogus static_assert in ranges::copy / move
algorithms
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116458
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexander Monakov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2c1d7c4573d3b938f44b3bda202adeb292b1cbc
commit r15-3121-gb2c1d7c4573d3b938f44b3bda202adeb292b1cbc
Author: Alexander Monakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
but one thing is funnny, in the bad asm
both symbols.LM19367 and .LM19368 appear to be in the same section:
.section.text.unlikely
.align 2
.LCOLDB277:
.text
.LHOTB277:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96fe95bac67c7303dc811c04f5e99cc959a7182a
commit r15-3120-g96fe95bac67c7303dc811c04f5e99cc959a7182a
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Tue Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108620
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernd Edlinger :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8ae8f9c2ed055b9e4408209f1c724493c5a3e3c
commit r15-3118-ga8ae8f9c2ed055b9e4408209f1c724493c5a3e3c
Author: Bernd Edlinger
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96290
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Well, nonsensical from the point of view of the user - it didn't seem to be
particularly different to me for the error to evoke an object as " + 1"
when it just means a VLA and "" when it just means an empty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101867
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101867
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2)
> ../gcc/configure --disable-nls --disable-werror --disable-libstdcxx-verbose
> --enable-libstdc++ --disable-ssp --enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=$PREFIX
> --target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113746
--- Comment #10 from Simon Martin ---
The ICE has disappeared since
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=f04dc89a991ddc6c08ac92c8ad29c6915c4ecafa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112666
Arvid Jonasson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonassonarvid02 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 58983
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58983&action=edit
ipa-icf.s with patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 58982
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58982&action=edit
ipa-icf.s without patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Bug ID: 116470
Summary: [15 regression] Enabling -gvariable-location-views
breaks Solaris/x86 bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116469
--- Comment #1 from Arvid Jonasson ---
Created attachment 58981
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58981&action=edit
Example 2 preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116469
Bug ID: 116469
Summary: Inconsistent Zero Initialization of Nested Structures
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0636de8c5202d8fe58af42afdf24dd93d1a90abd
commit r15-3099-g0636de8c5202d8fe58af42afdf24dd93d1a90abd
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #5 from Alessandro Astone ---
Here's the preprocessed files: https://aleasto.fedorapeople.org/ii.tar.gz
Let me know if you'd like other intermediate outputs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #186 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #185)
> It is not at all clear what is causing the wrong value or code, though. We
> are still at the starting point of the bugfix.
That's still great
99 matches
Mail list logo
