Hi,
As analyzed in PR94969, data dependence analysis now misses dependence vector
for specific case in which DRs in DDR have the same invariant access functions.
This simple patch fixes the issue by also covering invariant cases. Bootstrap
and test on x86_64, is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #8 from bin cheng ---
Root cause is in build_classic_dist_vector -> constant_access_functions which
adds unit distance vector only in case of constant access function. It should
cover invariant cases. Testing a patch. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66364
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77273
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61900
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57933
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95018
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 48502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48502=edit
Assembly file on x86 with -O2 -funroll-loops
So, it seems the decisions made for unrolling are bad for this case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44791
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
Recent regression. Bisection points to g:283cb9ea6293e813e4
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 11.0.0 20200510 (experimental) [master revision
4ae915cdbf0:8eedda9eef3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0447929f11e6a3e1b076841712b90a8b6bc7d33a
commit r11-259-g0447929f11e6a3e1b076841712b90a8b6bc7d33a
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still present at 10.1.1-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 50410, which changed state.
Bug 50410 Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in record_reference, pointer
variable in data statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #37 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Fixed in 10.1.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79636
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
This issue has been fixed long ago.
It should be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95007
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #12)
> Fixed.
Thanks, I backported the changeset to the (old) copy of libbacktrace I keep in
my fork of gdb and it only took a few tweaks to get it to compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81319
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
This issue has been fixed in gcc 10.1.1-1.
On 1/10/20, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Back in 2009 Manuel sent a patch to avoid useless -Wconversion warnings
> on compound assignment of types that get promoted to int:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00582.html
>
> Joseph argued that those warnings are sometimes useful, and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8da02efe62611a9f173c699a76010de5b916d33
commit r9-8583-gb8da02efe62611a9f173c699a76010de5b916d33
Author: Xionghu Luo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
271r.ce2 dump has
;; bb 0 artificial_defs: { d2(0){ }d5(1){ }d8(2){ }d9(6){ }d17(7){ }d34(16){
}d44(19){ }d47(20){ }d50(21){ }d53(22){ }d66(28){ }d69(29){ }d72(30){ }}
;; bb 0 artificial_uses: { }
;; lr in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95022
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at mcfarlane dot name
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95044
Bug ID: 95044
Summary: -Wreturn-local-addr false alarm in GCC 10.1.0
(regression)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91867
me at myrrec dot space changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||me at myrrec dot space
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95043
Bug ID: 95043
Summary: GCC 10 Analyzer and false positive on 'memcpy(dest,
src, count);'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Snapshot gcc-11-20200510 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20200510/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
I just committed this patch.
François
On 03/03/20 10:11 pm, François Dumont wrote:
After the fix of PR 91910 I tried to consider other possible race
condition and I think we still have a problem.
Like stated in the PR when a container is destroyed all associated
iterators are made singular.
Hi,
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 08:39:36PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote:
> > I'd also like to nominate the following two:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95042
Bug ID: 95042
Summary: ICE in can_merge_p, at analyzer/region-model.cc:2053
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95025
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95041
Bug ID: 95041
Summary: gdb does not prints variables inside an equivalence
statement in a module
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81319
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the German team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/de.po
(This file, 'gcc-10.1.0.de.po', has
On Sun, 10 May 2020, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> So, I found [1], that tries to explain this issue.
>
> [1] https://2pi.dk/2016/05/ieee-min-max
I would also recommend reading this report that covers a few more
architectures and issues with IEEE754 definitions:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:38 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2020 4:28:24 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 8 May 2020, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> >> > Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> Is the above enough to declare min/max as IEEE compliant?
> >
> >No. SSE min/max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95040
Bug ID: 95040
Summary: typo in common.opt: manging
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95039
Bug ID: 95039
Summary: GCC 10 Analyzer and ‘‘result_decl’ not supported by
dump_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92ed82367e7ccf5e031e9cb7c653c14a2d64ca89
commit r11-255-g92ed82367e7ccf5e031e9cb7c653c14a2d64ca89
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95037
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long ---
Note that for the greatly simplified test case
> cat test3.f90
real(4) function x (a)
real(kind(x)) a(:)
print *, kind(x)
end function x
gfortran compiles with no error. So maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f09d898296c02d023ec51489fd233075ac553fd4
commit r10-8127-gf09d898296c02d023ec51489fd233075ac553fd4
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
Bug ID: 95038
Summary: Not treating function result name as a variable.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So I think the issue is not dependence testing but loop distribution
> accepting a
> zero dependence distance as OK. Of course dependence analysis is quite
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95037
Bug ID: 95037
Summary: gfortran fails to compile a simple subroutine, issues
an opaque message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file, 'gcc-10.1.0.sv.po', has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036
Bug ID: 95036
Summary: ICE with variadic type/nttp template templates
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
From: Kelvin Nilsen
Add new insns vextdu[bhw]vlx, vextddvlx, vextdu[bhw]vhx, and
vextddvhx, along with built-in access and overloaded built-in
access to these insns.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no
regressions, using a Power9 configuration. Is this okay for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|iains at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
---
) and 20200510
(4ae915cdbf0d8aec5bf4db9a6b37306e84f99766), gnat.dg/sso/p10.adb started to FAIL
on Solaris/SPARC (both 32 and 64-bit):
+FAIL: gnat.dg/sso/p10.adb -O0 output pattern test
+FAIL: gnat.dg/sso/p10.adb -O1 -fno-inline output pattern test
+FAIL: gnat.dg/sso/p10.adb -O2 output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95035
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/readings.html | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/readings.html b/htdocs/readings.html
index 0dd27368..086baaa1 100644
--- a/htdocs/readings.html
+++ b/htdocs/readings.html
@@ -313,8 +313,8 @@ names.
Manufacturer: IBM
Greetings dear recipient!
First of all, hope you are well today... :)
You received one special attachment below. The topic is extraordinary
important because we are living in the very special and serious time. It
concerns every person on the world as if is the only existing being in the
whole
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95034
Bug ID: 95034
Summary: Pattern for xor not converted to xor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> Might as well just start the right version and skip that first approximation.
It sounds to me like you are somewhat keen to implement.
Feel free to go
Ping
On 03/05/2020 09:37, Iain Buclaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping.
>
> There is a new mangle string "Nm" in the abi to denote the @live attribute,
> however will add support in a follow up patch.
>
>
> On 15 April 2020 12:04:29 CEST, Iain Buclaw via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A first approximation that is implemented in the wrong part of the compiler,
using the wrong logic, giving the wrong answers, is not a step in the right
direction because it would need to be completely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I would expect no false positives for a warning like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95033
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95033
Bug ID: 95033
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in set_parm_rtl, at
cfgexpand.c:1310 since r11-165-geb72dc663e9070b2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95032
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95032
Bug ID: 95032
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294
since r11-187-g98329e3f5b85acc50d
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi Harald,
the attached should be mostly self-explaining. Division by zero handling
appeared to be incomplete. It was not dealt with properly when occurring
in declaration statements. We now try to handle this.
OK for mainline?
OK.
Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
Hi Tobias,
For assumed shape, gfortran generates an "arg.0 = arg->data"
artificial variable – and with optional one has something like
if (arg != NULL && arg->data != NULL)
{
arg.0 = arg->data;
lbound.0 = ...
}
And an "if (present(arg))" becomes
"if (arg != NULL && arg->data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95012
--- Comment #3 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
mingw does not define getpagesize as far as I can tell with:
$ grep -nr getpagesize /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/include/
but gcc seems to detect it (9.x and 10.x):
checking for getpagesize...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
--- Comment #5 from Inbal Levi ---
Stumbled across another rule which might be relevant here is:
[basic.align/1]
[...] An object type imposes an alignment requirement on every object of that
type; stricter alignment can be requested using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95031
Bug ID: 95031
Summary: GCC 10 Analyzer and fatal error: Terminated signal
terminated program cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
76 matches
Mail list logo
