https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116480
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58998
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58998&action=edit
patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116480
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
int
foo(unsigned __int128 b)
{
return __builtin_popcountg(b) == 1;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116480
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or rather the issue is here:
5320 rtx plhs = expand_normal (lhs);
5321 rtx pcmp = emit_store_flag (NULL_RTX, EQ, plhs, const1_rtx, mode, 0,
0);
We are expanding:
int _1;
uint128_t _2;
_Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #197 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #196)
> Both forms are completely equivalent (a multi element template is implicitly
> surrounded by parallel).
Yes and I just fixed a bug dealing with that and gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-04-11 00:00:00 |2024-8-24
--- Comment #20 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58992|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58992&action=edit
much more reduced testcase
Now this testcase also ICEs on x86_64-linux-gnu with `-O3 -g`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58990&action=edit
single file testcase
Reduced down to single file testcase; `-g -O3` is enough, no LTO needed now.
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=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=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=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
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|linkw at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116461
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easiest fix is todo:
```
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
{
a[i] = BASE1 + i * 5;
b[i] = BASE2 - i * 4;
/* b[i] cannot be 0 as that is undefined for `% b[i]`. */
b[i] = b[i] ? b[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96290
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #1)
> I've encountered a similarly nonsensical error on trunk, though not with
> VLAs, instead with a char array of size 0:
It is not nonsensical at all. It just has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 57993 [details]
> Patch but it does not work for the code in this testcase
>
> I have to look into why it is not working for the testcase in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/661228.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104707
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> Testing removal of this part from the driver.
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/661228.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58978|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58977|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58977&action=edit
Reduced testcase
options: `-ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns
-fno-vect-cost-model -fno-commo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Bug ID: 116463
Summary: [15 Regression] fast-math-complex-mls-{double,float}.c
fail after r15-3087-gb07f8a301158e5
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alessandro Astone from comment #1)
> Cannot attach intermediate files because the size is too large.
> Sorry that I don't have a minimal reproducer :/
Is there a place where you could upload th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try adding -fchecking and seeing if that fails differently?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116449
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #3)
> Isn't the missing bounds check on parr[c] on purpose? It's added with
> -fsanitize=bounds-strict.
You might be right, I misread the original qnd gimple dump. But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115241
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to sadineniharish8446 from comment #4)
> Is GCC upstream planning to backport the patch to older release branches for
> gcc versions? If yes, which release versions will have it?
>
> We can help t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116457
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is NOT a security feature. It actually can introduce security bugs and
even make things un-reproducible.
As mentioned in the other bug, the c++ standard went out of their way to say
this is invalid eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 58974 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
>
> Simple tests on the testcase works and we get the correct behavior now.
This patch causes som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116455
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zhao Dai from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Zhao Dai from comment #3)
> > > I understand that the standard says so.
> > >
> > > But the question is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116455
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zhao Dai from comment #3)
> I understand that the standard says so.
>
> But the question is: Should it?
This is not the correct forum for that though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116455
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the standard does not define it as constexpr which is why it is not
constexpr in libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58974
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58974&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
Simple tests on the testcase works and we get the correct behavior now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
static int t = 0;
_Complex float f()
{
t++;
return 0;
}
int main() {
t = 0;
f() * 1j; // incorrectly invokes f() twice
if (t != 1)
__bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|`*++ptr *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116453
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116453
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58972
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58972&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116453
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116451
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -Wconversion is not enabled by -Wall or -Wextra, so I am not sure this is
a bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116452
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||indiosmo at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116449
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116449
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like there is a missing SAVE_EXPR in a few places when dealing with the
pointer to member functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Ah no, during iterator construction we do:
>
> this->_M_attach(const_cast<_Safe_sequence_base*>(__seq), __constant);
>
> So that is a library bug.
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamkirkezz at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stsp at users dot
sourceforge.net
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89408
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 106988 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rasmus.tempcache at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2024-08-13 00:00:00 |2024-8-21
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116437
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> if (ok)
> bitmap_set_bit (changed_pseudos, REGNO (SET_DEST (set)));
>
> Most likely should be reg_or_subregno here I think.
Even that might be wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116435
Bug ID: 116435
Summary: there are 3 rtx_hashes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> This C code seems to fail with -O1:
>
> int RB_Open_SingleDocumentation_document;
> char RB_Open_SingleDocumentation_document_0,
> RB_Open_SingleDocumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> This too works with -march=x86-64 but not -march=x86-64-v2.
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-31.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " \\* 2" 1
Simple fix -fno-tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> More:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92834.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 8
This is .REDUC_MAX vs MAX_EXPR .
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94786.c sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116434
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||digger1984 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
901 - 1000 of 7312 matches
Mail list logo
