public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise calculation
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:15:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-106878-4-rpCfKwTsFG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-106878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #19 from Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #18)
> So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
> changes, and the other two patches as is. Is that right? Would it make sense
> to squash these if we were to backport them or should they be kept as
> separate patches?
FWIW I tested the backports as described above on the GCC 12 branch,
bootstrap/regtest passed on both x86_64-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. Is it
OK to backport those patches to GCC 12?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-20 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-07 17:28 [Bug tree-optimization/106878] New: ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 on arm-none-eabi acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 17:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 19:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise caluclation acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 19:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 13:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 13:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 14:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 14:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-13 8:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 10:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-31 18:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-31 18:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-25 15:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise calculation jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 12:33 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-10 0:28 ` vvinayag at arm dot com
2023-04-27 12:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-27 12:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-13 8:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-29 10:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 13:56 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-20 9:15 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-106878-4-rpCfKwTsFG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).