https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> What about this patch:
> ```
> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.cc b/gcc/simplify-rtx.cc
> index 69d87579d9c..f3745d86aea 100644
> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.cc
> +++ b/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> > What about this patch:
> > ```
> > diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.cc b/gcc/simplify-rtx.cc
> > index 69d87579d9c..f3745
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I almost want to say this is a bug in the x86 back-end where it pushes the
> flags onto the stack.
Yes, could be - let me look into this a bit more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |c
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107333
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a140730c970870a5125beb1114f6c01679a040e
commit r14-5385-g0a140730c970870a5125beb1114f6c01679a040e
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102365
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112480
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112496
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> if (TREE_CODE (init_expr) == INTEGER_CST)
> init_expr = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (vectype), init_expr);
> else
> gcc_assert (tree_nop_conversion_p (TREE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #44 from Manolis Tsamis ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #39)
> In the f-m-o pass, the following three insns that set call clobbered
> registers r20-r22 are pulled from loop:
>
> (insn 186 183 190 29 (set (reg/f:SI 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #45 from Manolis Tsamis ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #41)
> I would agree. In fact,the whole point of the f-m-o pass is to bring those
> immediates into the memory reference. It'd be really useful to know why
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112507
Bug ID: 112507
Summary: Missed optimization of strcpy(3) (or stpcpy(3)) with
previous strnlen(3)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #5 from Richard Sandiford ---
Could you quantify the performance impact that you're seeing? Figures relative
to no protection and to unpatched -fstack-protector-strong would be useful.
-fstack-protector-strong adds a large overhead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 56567
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56567&action=edit
Proposed patch
Nope, even with the above patch the compiler ICEs at the same place:
0x1956968 ix86_cc_mode(rtx_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111811
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Now we have:
#1 0x0286a3aa in try_combine (i3=0x7fffe3c18100, i2=0x7fffe3c18000,
i1=0x0, i0=0x0, new_direct_jump_p=0x7fffd8eb,
last_combined_insn=0x7fffe3c18100) at ../../git/gcc/gcc/combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112498
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe we could add "is not allowed in ISO C++" or similar to the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112480
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I prefer:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/optional
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/optional
@@ -311,6 +311,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
{
if (this->_M_engaged)
_M_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112433
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
Just talked with Lehua offline.
We don't think splitting RA can improve performance a lot.
We should consider it more seriously instead of support this blindly.
Since splitting RA will increase compile-time si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112480
--- Comment #7 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> + // The following seems redundant but improves codegen, see PR 112480.
> + if constexpr (is_trivially_destructible_v<_Tp>)
> + this->_M_en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112493
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Of course the compiler should not ICE, but the code will not work as intended
in any case, see the warning issued by the compiler about the unsupported type
punning. If you want to byte-swap data, use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112494
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks to me that gcc_unreachable is problematic in SELECT_CC_MODE. We should
simply return CCmode for all unrecognised RTX:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index 2c80fd8ebf3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #6 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #5)
> Could you quantify the performance impact that you're seeing? Figures
> relative to no protection and to unpatched -fstack-protector-strong would be
> useful.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #7 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #6)
> For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because
> the function stack frame not changed when aarch64_save_regs_above_locals_p
> is false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112508
Bug ID: 112508
Summary: [14 Regression] Size regression when using -Os
starting with r14-4089-gd45ddc2c04e
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112508
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112509
Bug ID: 112509
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:1132
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112510
Bug ID: 112510
Summary: Regression: ASAN code injection breaks alignment of
stack variables
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112511
Bug ID: 112511
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
type_contains_placeholder_1, at tree.cc:4243
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112480
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Good point, it looks like we get the same codegen improvement for ~T(){} even
at -O1 if we don't restrict it to trivially destructible types.
There seems to be no difference in codegen for _M_engaged=fals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112512
Bug ID: 112512
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1861
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-13
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112510
Vladimir Sadovnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Vladimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #8 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #7)
> (In reply to John Dong from comment #6)
> > For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because
> > the function stack frame not changed wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111000
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b2abef4e62d816f669df478a3cc320647c3b31
commit r14-5391-ga0b2abef4e62d816f669df478a3cc320647c3b31
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111792
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b2abef4e62d816f669df478a3cc320647c3b31
commit r14-5391-ga0b2abef4e62d816f669df478a3cc320647c3b31
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Does it still occur after the last round of fixes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112433
--- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng ---
Yeah, 3 major goal in LLVM is improving scheduling, partial spilling and
re-materialization, but none of those points are issue for RISC-V GCC :P
Ref:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BOYNYKe1T-u3Q5HXRr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112510
Vladimir Sadovnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #36 from Brjd ---
I got memory troubles with insn-recog.cc and gimple-match.cc too. Please
correct them for gcc 10-13 in the their last .5 releases, so that we can
bootstrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #46 from Manolis Tsamis ---
I have reproduced the segfault with f-m-o limited to only fold insn 272 from
compiler_call_helper. The exact transformation is:
Memory offset changed from 0 to 388 for instruction:
(insn 273 272 276 30 (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112513
Bug ID: 112513
Summary: Misoptimization of argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5021fa7076acd5a987362c8695ae3ebeff877d02
commit r14-5392-g5021fa7076acd5a987362c8695ae3ebeff877d02
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f593c0521caab8cfac53514b1a5e7d0d0dd1932
commit r14-5393-g0f593c0521caab8cfac53514b1a5e7d0d0dd1932
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112514
Bug ID: 112514
Summary: All ACATS tests fail on trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112499
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112509
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
the original switch is an unsigned value with precision of 3 bits, so 0..7 just
fits.
It gets translated to an int index during gimplification, but the case labels
are still precision 3 values.
find_case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #37 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #47 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-11-13 4:33 a.m., manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
>
> --- Comment #44 from Manolis Tsamis ---
> (In reply to John David Angli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
Brjd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brjd_epdjq36 at kygur dot com
--- Comment #38 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110779
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0036702555195d3fd8089577b7c1e2ce5f2ff5b1
commit r14-5416-g0036702555195d3fd8089577b7c1e2ce5f2ff5b1
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #48 from Manolis Tsamis ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #47)
> On 2023-11-13 4:33 a.m., manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
> >
> > --- Comment #44 from Manolis Tsam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110944
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a3d3d2361e3c44dad472a5a12318cba19b6e643
commit r13-8047-g3a3d3d2361e3c44dad472a5a12318cba19b6e643
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111497
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is this backportable to release branches or too risky?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110944
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|13.3
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112515
Bug ID: 112515
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building Transmission in
standard_conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #14)
> Admittedly a single "mov" isn't much of a saving on modern architectures,
> but as demonstrated by the PR, people still track the number of them.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112516
Bug ID: 112516
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building MySQL (ree check:
expected tree that contains ‘decl common’ structure,
have ‘identifier_node’ in get_inner_reference, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112481
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112515
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
enum class Ordering { SMALLER = -1, EQUAL, LARGER };
template
Ordering compare_vfunc(T t) {
return Ordering{compare(t)};
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112516
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112427
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 112516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] ICE when|[14 regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112517
Bug ID: 112517
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when buliding xen-tools (internal
compiler error: in make_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.cc:354)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111497
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Is this backportable to release branches or too risky?
I don't think it is risky. LRA was designed to have unshared rtl. So copying
rtl in LRA is not risky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112517
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reduced testcase contains:
```
size_t tmp_len = ({
size_t mod_multiply_len = ({
sizeof(struct {struct {} temp_modulus; });
});
sizeof(struct {
struct {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
--- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oh well, more to fix.
I wonder whether we could validate the trees created by the front-end FE
somehow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112483
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> Works for me. Will you send the simplify_gen_unary ->
> simplify_unary_operation change to gcc-patches?
I don't have a platform where it makes a difference to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112478
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
Bug ID: 112518
Summary: [14 Regression] wrong code with
__builtin_mul_overflow_p() on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112481
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai,
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
