https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Bug ID: 116895
Summary: [15 Regression] Many c++ regressions after
r15-3859-g63a598deb0c9fc for (non-arm) newlib targets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
> but if the test fails before the "close"-line is reached
> (consider the multiple "stop"-lines), it wouldn't help.
I think I'll do both: the added cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Can you test if adding a line
>
> close(10, status="delete")
>
> before the
>
> end program memain
>
> fixes the issue? If so, such a fix is pre-approved;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Hans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116744
Bug ID: 116744
Summary: RFE: can generated SARIF file be a container for
"everything" needed for a bug-report against gcc?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116724
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> Perhaps we should try to capture both the untranslated text and the
> translated text? SARIF has various abilities for handling translations.
Works for m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Bug ID: 116701
Summary: [15 Regression] gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90 suddenly
fails for non-fd_truncate targets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #260 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Random advice that some of you know, but it's also easy to forget: reorg (the
delayed-branch-slot-filling pass) is a usual suspect: there be dragons. So,
when suspecting wrong-code for DELAY_SLOTS suc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112985
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> But LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT=0 is
> really not a good thing (see PR116166 where it slows down bootstrapping GCC).
It may be true for both loongarch and ris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116525
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think it is more related the changelog for testsuite rather than anything
> else.
Can you please elaborate?
There are scripts in contrib/gcc-changelog/ y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116525
Bug ID: 116525
Summary: Commit hook allows empty ChangeLog entry description
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
The underlying issue was fixed by the commit fixing PR116236, i.e.
commit r15-2937-g3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96, so I'll close this
but refresh the attribute-copying patch (adjusting the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #27 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #23)
> The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96
>
> commit r15-2937-g3673b70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Bug ID: 116362
Summary: [15 Regression] libstdc++ assumes newlib is configured
to include iconv
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
Bug ID: 115932
Summary: [15 Regression] performance regression after
r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
>From r15-2024-ga01b40c047334c (disabling late-combine for CRIS), you'll need
-flate-combine-instructions to expose the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Bug ID: 115883
Summary: [15 Regression] late-combine exposing LRA problems
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #27)
> The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra
> :
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> I've completed the sparc64-linux comparison now: no regressions with a
> non-bootstrap build and your patches either, thus the same situat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> > --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> >> The failure is even earlier here: in a sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu
> >> bootstrap, buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
> > --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> >> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> [...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
BTW, I see the target list says sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 which seems a cutnpasto
from some ancient template: that particular version is installed on cfarm211
and a build log for a recent gcc checkout says
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Hans-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and
> runs Solaris 11.4, which is the only OS release supported on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-25
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|testsuite-fail |
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Bug ID: 115182
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/cris/pr93372-47.c at
r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> For gcc.c-torture/execute/arith-rand-ll.c, does it help to replace the exit
> (0) call with a return 0 statement?
No. FWIW, it also doesn't help renaming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> Not-so-wild guess: r15-518, for similar-but-unrelated reasons to PR115144.
Ah, dyscalculia strikes again. :) Please ignore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58241&action=edit
tree-dump file@518 w. ivopts
As above @518 without -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58240&action=edit
tree-dump file@517 w. ivopts
As above @517, but no -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58239&action=edit
tree-dump file @518
arith-rand.c @r15-518
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58238&action=edit
tree-dump file@517
arith-rand.c @r15-517
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I also ran a round compiled with -fno-ivopts -fno-delayed-branch: the latter
because it's somewhat non-linear in finding delay-slot-filling opportunities
(lack of "luck" causing improvements to negate)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Bug ID: 115144
Summary: [15 Regression] 2% performance regression for some
codes with r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115110
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Hans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Bug ID: 115141
Summary: [15 Regression] g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr83215.C and
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c since
r15-512-g9b7cad5884f21c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114858
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Looks like it slowly chews up memory. I killed an -O2 run when cc1plus had
consumed 110 GiB, x86_64-linux at r14-10114-g09680e3ee7d7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114454
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >Please be advised that the argument is *not* evaluated with release checking
>
> Actually it is evaluated with release checking as release checking enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Bug ID: 114492
Summary: Invalid use of gcc_assert (notably in
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-ldp-fusion.cc)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
There it is! I *knew* I had a PR entered for this, and was a bit surprised
when the ipa attribute was introduced, that this PR wasn't cross-referenced.
Then again I guess most people don't check in bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108355
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Can --with-multilib-list=aprofile,rmprofile at least be made the default when
no colliding --with-* options are specified?
Would that blow up "everyone"'s CI due to the extra build time?
If so, perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Bug ID: 114143
Summary: Non-thumb arm32 code in thumb multilib for libgcc and
in -mthumb build
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113779
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
There's a test-suite patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643667.html which is
currently in review-ping limbo.
I'm unassigning myself from this PR. I won't work on the actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112737
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Looks like this also fixed one of the remaining FAILs logged in PR112580,
specifically
"FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header_b.C -std=c++2b (test for excess errors)".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #5)
> > Not entirely, xtreme-header_b.C is still failing, as indicated above. See
> > recently:
> > h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113398
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Bug ID: 113545
Summary: ICE in label_matches with constexpr function with
switch-statement and converted (nonconstant, cast
address) input
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102626
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113437
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm, sparc* |arm, sparc*, cris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113038, which changed state.
Bug 113038 Summary: [14 regression] Excess errors for
g++.dg/modules/hello-1_b.C after r14-6569-gfe54b57728c09a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
For cris-elf, a change in the range (known to fail, known to pass]
(r14-8193-g3340878009acfc, r14-8200-g9a5e8f9d112adb] seems to have fixed the
remaining hello-1 execution failure, so fixed by r14-8196-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112580, which changed state.
Bug 112580 Summary: [14 Regression]: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-4_b.C et al;
ICE tree check: expected class 'type', have 'declaration'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112419
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Fixed. I guess.
Correct; sorry, I should have close it myself after the commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113230
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
By the (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Although I guess Andrew's qemu setup doesn't match the simulator ET.
FWIW, by his uploaded board-info file calling 'load_generic_config "sim"' and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113230
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113038, which changed state.
Bug 113038 Summary: [14 regression] Excess errors for
g++.dg/modules/hello-1_b.C after r14-6569-gfe54b57728c09a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Huh, how bizarre.
Indeed. I'm *not* ruling out an actual gcc bug. Whether in the target or
middle-end this time I dare not guess; too few posts.
JFTR; I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Bug ID: 113226
Summary: [14 Regression]
testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc fails for
cris-elf after r14-6888-ga138b99646a555
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug,
> so IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
Maybe I should have been explicit: that was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #3 from Hans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Bisecting (native) has progressed beyond the r13 mark, i.e. this is indeed a
"[14 Regression]" only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mmix-knuth-mmixware |mmix-knuth-mmixware,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Bug ID: 113175
Summary: [14 Regression] MMIX:
testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times
slower
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #9)
> The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d03630b123411340e52d05124cb0cacfa1fc8b0
>
> commit r14-6817-g3d03630b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #8)
> I'm wondering if we need to revert r14-6674 to avoid this functionality
> issue. And revisit/enhance the patch later.
No need, not anymore; not because of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> So I did a quick audit of the EH_RETURN_HANDLER_RTX
Yeah, me too.
> and most are registers
> rather than a memory location . And the ones which were mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Hmm, see PR 32398 and PR 32769. PR 32769 is interesting because it was
> caused by the merge of the df branch where the store was being removed just
> like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
It's __builtin_eh_return( that's miscompiled, such that the "handler" isn't
installed and the calling function will return to its caller instead of the
handler.
For the example below:
void f(__UINTPTR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> That
> printf-statement is likely not reached,
Now confirmed. The assembly output for eh6.s is identical (before/after), but
apparently support-libra
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
