https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121196
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #7 from Jan Schultke ---
> Note I think this part is missed by clang here:
> 8.5.4 List-initialization [dcl.init.list] p.3.2
> Otherwise, if T is a character array and the initializer list has a single
> element that is an appropriat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121196
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdff4d7a8c0a39c66cd2609c7d818d7afe05ce6c
commit r16-2572-gbdff4d7a8c0a39c66cd2609c7d818d7afe05ce6c
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #22 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
And reduced somewhat more by hand, no idea why cvise couldn't figure this out:
-8<-
struct h {
int g;
constexpr h() : g() {}
};
struct n {
h m{};
};
struct H {
int p[6]{0, 1, 2, 3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955
--- Comment #21 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ok, reduction finally done:
-8<-
template struct b {
typedef int c[a];
};
template struct f {
b::c d;
};
namespace e::detail {
struct h {
int g;
constexpr h() : g() {}
};
} // na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Schultke from comment #2)
> Well sure, char a[] = {""}; is fine, just like the initialization of 's'
> is fine in the code example (as it should be).
>
> What I'm interested in how the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang changed in clang 3.8. In that 3.1 to 3.7 accepts it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Schultke from comment #3)
> I need to ask CWG about this; it could just be that Clang is wrong, and I've
> had some false assumptions.
Note EDG also accepts it ... So 3 out of 4 accept whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #3 from Jan Schultke ---
Actually hold on a minute. Something that has not yet occurred to me is that in
> T t({"awoo"});
those braces could possibly be used to initialize a new T object, meaning that
this is an attempt at calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #2 from Jan Schultke ---
Well sure, char a[] = {""}; is fine, just like the initialization of 's' is
fine in the code example (as it should be).
What I'm interested in how the compiler internals make the initialization of
't' va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely because it is similar to `char a[] = {""};` which is accepted
by all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121267
Bug ID: 121267
Summary: Accepts-invalid deduction of array size from
brace-enclosed string literal length (initializer
list)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121264
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] |[15/16 Regression]
|ifcom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[13/14/15/16 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-28
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121047
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Also, if you have one of those CPUs and it's running w/ stale firmware, the
damage may already be done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121261
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Problems with |[16 regression] Problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121264
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] |[15/16 Regression]
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121264
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56ca271e7b22ff1d39910f5e54048124906718d0
commit r14-11916-g56ca271e7b22ff1d39910f5e54048124906718d0
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a624fede4e6d9eeca32279d1418916a0a880394
commit r15-10077-g0a624fede4e6d9eeca32279d1418916a0a880394
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #10 from pietro ---
(In reply to pietro from comment #9)
> Does this patch for PR120935 fix this issue for MIPS too? I tried building a
> mips64-elf cross but my scripts failed so I don't have a quick way to check
> it.
>
> https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121064
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> Fixed for trunk. Will backport to 14 and 15.
Do you plan to backport it before the 15.2 RC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121266
Bug ID: 121266
Summary: [16 regression] (x86) Missed an '-Os' optimization on
setting a register value to -1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121265
Bug ID: 121265
Summary: CTAD for alias templates
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121264
Bug ID: 121264
Summary: ifcombine wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121238
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Created attachment 61980
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61980&action=edit
partial reduction
OK, my cvise also ended up with something nondeterministic... here's an
in-progress reduct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121263
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.5
Summary|ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121263
Bug ID: 121263
Summary: ICE with transfer with rank 1 unlimited polymorhpic
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121217
--- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tentative patch
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc b/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
index b46eb43bb5a..27cfb61c88d 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
+++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
@@ -1970,6 +1970,9 @@ tagged_types_tu_com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121262
Bug ID: 121262
Summary: (x86) GCC sometimes produces 'cmp' instructions of
larger register width
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121236
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690752.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121258
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I noticed LLVM does it slightly different. They do it more like:
```
uint32_t func_c(uint32_t xs, uint32_t x) {
uint32_t i = xs;
bool t;
do {
t = cond(i);
i++;
}while (t);
//
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121258
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101604
Bug 101604 depends on bug 98379, which changed state.
Bug 98379 Summary: Unknown tree: c_maybe_const_expr in a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98379
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98379
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121261
Bug ID: 121261
Summary: Problems with bootstrap-ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118280
--- Comment #27 from Neal Frager ---
(In reply to Gopi Kumar Bulusu from comment #26)
> Created attachment 61904 [details]
> Revised patch
>
> With this patch g++ compiler can be used to build programs.
>
> In particular - this libstdc++ test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
> > --- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
> Endianess (or strict-alignment) issue?
Endianness - no, it works fine on BE Power (both 64 and 32b multi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #44 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f61284eae6365e77b28af8fa4bc3dc7e5e0fac9
commit r16-2568-g0f61284eae6365e77b28af8fa4bc3dc7e5e0fac9
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #42 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f9f20df98b1fe8dd8b179b157d268470bde70f4
commit r16-2566-g5f9f20df98b1fe8dd8b179b157d268470bde70f4
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #43 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1800ac20f66812c72b144848f7ec8e66156f06f8
commit r16-2567-g1800ac20f66812c72b144848f7ec8e66156f06f8
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121260
Bug ID: 121260
Summary: [16 Regression] Build failure on
--enable-checking=release:
gcc/diagnostics/changes.cc:900:2: error: expected '}'
at end of input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93eeb52a81b2a6c11917b14549ff5a5aeb37af8f
commit r15-10075-g93eeb52a81b2a6c11917b14549ff5a5aeb37af8f
Author: Alexey Merzlyakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121254
--- Comment #4 from Omer Ozarslan ---
I debugged this a bit yesterday. __parse_integer returns nullptr for the second
argument here:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blame/62f8a246bbaa1a1f5aedba4c84f7fe4c7eca799f/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/std/f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121254
--- Comment #3 from Omer Ozarslan ---
Created attachment 61979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61979&action=edit
asm for good version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121254
--- Comment #2 from Omer Ozarslan ---
Created attachment 61978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61978&action=edit
asm for bad version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
well .. the visible difference in gimple, but this is code outside of the
coroutines changes (i.e. just a bit of regular C++).
However, it does seem we create the return object correctly .. and then return
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #10 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #9)
> That's the whole point of r15-6514-g995d1c2b7cca9b.
ah yeah, I didn't see the commit linked above.
hm, but that seems wrong in general for a '-none' target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Kishan Parmar from comment #13)
> Operand of 10 gets converted to below insn
>
> (and:SI (subreg:SI (lshiftrt:DI (reg:DI 129 [ x+-4 ])
> (const_int 12 [0xc])) 4)
> (const_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
That's the whole point of r15-6514-g995d1c2b7cca9b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #8 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #7)
> should that perhaps be use_gcc_stdint=provide ? is there a standard library
> that would be providing it for the GCC targets?
bleh, I mean BPF targets, of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Nope, it seems the initial recurrence vector is bogus:
>
> vect_cst__84 = {blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58,
> blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Nope, it seems the initial recurrence vector is bogus:
vect_cst__84 = {blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58,
blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58, blue_lsm.10_58,
blue_lsm.10_58};
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-27
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121255
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
$ bpf-unknown-none-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=bpf-unknown-none-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/bpf-toolchain/libexec/gcc/bpf-unknown-none/15/lto-wrapper
Target: bpf-unknown-none
Configured with:
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Oh, it works with -ffreestanding..
But how do I need to configure things s.t. it works w/o -ffreestanding?
(I suspect DTrace gets the weird error because it does -idir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Oh, it works with -ffreestanding..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.gentoo.org/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121259
Bug ID: 121259
Summary: [15/16 regression] can't be included for
bpf-unknown-none
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121256
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61976|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121258
Bug ID: 121258
Summary: Missed optimization with 'while' loop that can be
converted to 'do-while'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
80 matches
Mail list logo
