: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
It's a recent regression. Bisection points to g:529ea7d9596b26ba103578eeab
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 10.0.1 20200411 (experimental) [master revision
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 04:27:07PM -0700, Sasha Krassovsky via Gcc wrote:
> However, in the following example, the load does get the cost applied to it
> but the store to B does not.
>
> void bar(__attribute__((remote(5)) int *a, int *b)
> {
> if(*A > 5)
> *A = 10;
> *B = *A;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87972
Nicolas Boulenguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11
Hello!
I’m currently modifying the RISC-V backend for a manycore processor where each
core is connected over a network. Each core has a local scratchpad memory, but
can also read and write other cores’ scratchpads. I’d like to add an attribute
to give a hint to the optimizer about which loads
Snapshot gcc-9-20200411 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20200411/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566
Bug ID: 94566
Summary: conversion between std::strong_ordering and int
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Even though ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok doesn't allow xmm16-xmm31 nor
ymm16-ymm31 in 128/256 bit modes when AVX512VL is disabled, reload
can still generate reg to reg moves with xmm16-xmm31 and ymm16-ymm31
in 128/256 bit modes. Remove mode size check in ix86_get_ssemov.
gcc/
PR target/94561
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94565
Bug ID: 94565
Summary: C++20: Comparing comparison category types against
0/nullptr is not noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94564
Bug ID: 94564
Summary: C++20: Three-way comparison between pointer and
nullptr accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94563
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
To clarify the actual bug character of this issue, the following example shows
it more clearly:
template
bool test(T*)
{
return true;
}
int main()
{
test((int*)(nullptr));
}
This program should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94563
Bug ID: 94563
Summary: Relational operations between pointer and nullptr
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94091
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it's because that operator isn't implemented yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
--- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
This may be the test case, though I'm not 100% sure:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562
Bug ID: 94562
Summary: C++20: std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94104
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
Wysłane z iPhone'a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #14 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Exact error for 10.0:
In file included from
/usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.c:56:
/usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function
'__multi3':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #13 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Breakage in GCC 10 was caused after 201900818 snapshot, but before 201900825
(201900825 is the first broken).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||94404
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94560
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, there is a larger patch approved for GCC11, but not for GCC10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
Is there some further work pending, or can this PR be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Is there some further work pending, or can this PR be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 86327, which changed state.
Bug 86327 Summary: Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ded16a7782fd3a9e7b37291d04bca596b00b8bd
commit r10-7688-g4ded16a7782fd3a9e7b37291d04bca596b00b8bd
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
Fixed by r264171.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
PR c++/86327
* g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-return5.C: New test.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-return5.C | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Bug ID: 94561
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_get_ssemov
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Hi Folks,
sorry for the long CC list - please feel free to ignore if you don’t care :)
I propose that this PR should be re-categorized as a “C++” one.
The reason is that this is not an oversight in the GCC implementation,
but a problem present in the general case. Library implementors feel
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Gustavo Romero via Gcc-patches wrote:
> gcc/Changelog:
> 2020-04-06 Gustavo Romero
>
> * dumpfile.c:
> (selftest::temp_dump_context::temp_dump_context): Fix ctor.
If you approve (David, Jakub, or someone else) I can take care of
committing this if you like.
Hi,
Here is the patch with some of the null pointer tests removed.
This is regression-tested. ChangeLog and test case are as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-April/054193.html .
The list of test cases that fail without the remaining NULL
check is below. Is this OK for trunk?
Best
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90526
Hannes Domani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssbssa at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2fee90546d0f04595301af8f3786b8e1671814a
commit r9-8492-gd2fee90546d0f04595301af8f3786b8e1671814a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59eddd9769057ee094cdae09b15b257cc3db690f
commit r9-8491-g59eddd9769057ee094cdae09b15b257cc3db690f
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94560
Bug ID: 94560
Summary: ICE on recursive templated alias
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes of redux__scal_ expander
expand with SSE2 instructions (PSRLDQ and PCMPGTx) so use
TARGET_SSE2 as relevant mode iterator codition.
2020-04-11 Uroš Bizjak
PR target/94494
* config/i386/sse.md (REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE): Use TARGET_SSE2
condition for V4SI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566
commit r10-7687-gf883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94559
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94559
Bug ID: 94559
Summary: Nitpick: constexpr_fill test isn't constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94558
Bug ID: 94558
Summary: Designated initializer inside _Generic is
misinterpreted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33661
Martin Papik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mp8191mp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
48 matches
Mail list logo
