https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92233
Bug ID: 92233
Summary: missed optimisation for multiplication when it's known
that at least one of the arguments is 0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 47116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47116=edit
Peliminary patch
This is a preliminary patch to allow others to check the results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44515
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #9)
> Trunk now emits:
>
> t.c: In function ‘foo’:
> t.c:4:8: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
>bar()
> ^
> ;
> t.c:7:1:
> }
> ~
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> Built-in functions related to integer overflow should be defined in terms
> of the C abstract machine model, not in terms of processor flags.
They
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92232
Bug ID: 92232
Summary: [C++17] Unable to deduce template function parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91661
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Built-in functions related to integer overflow should be defined in terms
of the C abstract machine model, not in terms of processor flags.
See recent WG14 discussions around this issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92213
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
When the same register is assigned by assign_by_spills which sets
reg_renumber and assigned by assign_spill_hard_regs which sets
hard_regs_spilled_into, lra_create_live_ranges_1 treats the register
only for spill,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
--- Comment #10 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Maksymilian Arciemowicz from comment #6)
> > > > Do you have any other testcases?
> > >
> > > for trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91581
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91581
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 25 19:11:58 2019
New Revision: 277462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277462=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91581 - ICE in exception-specification of defaulted ctor.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
Bug ID: 92231
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in
gimple_fold_stmt_to_constant_1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92230
Bug ID: 92230
Summary: Proposal to have builtin underflow detection function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Bug ID: 92229
Summary: Optimization makes it impossible to read overflow flag
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87237
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92223
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
This is related to PR 60336.
too 10.0.0_pre) version 10.0.0-pre9999 20191025 (experimental)
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 10.0.0-pre9999 20191025 (experimental), GMP
version 6.1.2, MPFR version 4.0.2, MPC version 1.1.0, isl version isl-0.21-GMP
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91766
--- Comment #13 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
>
> > This should be a global change and not just an aarch64 change. The reason
> > is because then aarch64 is the odd man out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85678
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 84487, which changed state.
Bug 84487 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto
with r254427
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84613
Bug 84613 depends on bug 84487, which changed state.
Bug 84487 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto
with r254427
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #63 from Richard Earnshaw ---
We need to reach closure on this, but there's nothing really concrete to make
such a decision. Which of the tests originally reported are still failing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85969
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85969
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 25 15:13:23 2019
New Revision: 277455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277455=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85969
* config/avr/gen-avr-mmcu-specs.c (str_prefix_p):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47114=edit
double64-5.diff: Support --with-double={32|64} --with-long-double={32|64}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Test from Bug 92221:
template class a {
using b = int;
using c = int;
b d;
void e() { g(d); }
template static void g(f...);
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimitar.yordanov at sap dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92221
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88656
Bug 88656 depends on bug 88167, which changed state.
Bug 88167 Summary: [7/8/9 regression] [ARM] Function __builtin_return_address
returns invalid address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88656
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
--- Comment #6 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Those are intrinsics and most of them are documented in the Intel
> > architecture manuals, or various web sites.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Oct 25 14:39:06 2019
New Revision: 277454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277454=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm][PR88167] Fix __builtin_return_address returns invalid address
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92227
Bug ID: 92227
Summary: Optimizations on constant integer overflow checks lead
to incorrect results
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92058
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Going to be fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01777.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Oct 25 14:37:14 2019
New Revision: 277453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277453=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm][PR88167] Fix __builtin_return_address returns invalid address
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Oct 25 14:34:44 2019
New Revision: 277452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277452=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm][PR88167] Fix __builtin_return_address returns invalid address
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92226
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92226
Bug ID: 92226
Summary: [10 Regression] live nul char store to array
eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> This. V2DImode of REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE should be conditional on
> TARGET_SSE4_2.
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88656
Bug 88656 depends on bug 88167, which changed state.
Bug 88167 Summary: [7/8/9 regression] [ARM] Function __builtin_return_address
returns invalid address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (define_expand "reduc_plus_scal_"
> [(plus:REDUC_PLUS_MODE
>(match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
>(match_operand:REDUC_PLUS_MODE 1 "register_operand"))]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 25 13:03:56 2019
New Revision: 277448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277448=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/9
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88656
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This was fixed on trunk at some point, but not yet been backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, there's no need for a new bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
Alexander Potapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glider at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code:
void a(long);
unsigned *b;
void c() {
long d;
for (int e; e; e++)
if (b[e] > d)
d = b[e];
a(d);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
> Would it be better if I re-file this ticket as implement -Wsign-conversion
> for C++ ?
I mean expand -Wsign-conversion for C++ to detect the enum conversion that the
same option does for C code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant ---
Many thanks for your reply. Would you rather I close this and create a new
ticket with just your test case so it is clearer on bugzilla?
Just to note, gcc trunk shows a warning in C - but oddly g++ does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92216
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Kozak ---
Created attachment 47112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47112=edit
Make thunk weak linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92218
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
The VSX instructions load scalar from memory and splat into the register are
another class of x-form only memory instructions that would need the indexed
insn attribute set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Caused by r263290. From the log:
I'm also not sure why:
if (!first && !oprnd_info->first_pattern
/* Allow different pattern state for the defs of the
first stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92153
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Oct 25 11:17:38 2019
New Revision: 277443
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277443=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport ggc_trim
Backport from mainline
2019-10-18 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The bug first seems to occur sometime between revision 277300 and 277350.
Since this is C++ code, it may take me some time to reduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225
Bug ID: 92225
Summary: ice in gen_smaxv2di3, at config/i386/sse.md:12225
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92207
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
BTW, it looks like the libgloss implementation of the syscall API and startup
code has had this change since 2015.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I think this issue is probably latent. Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92224
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also, set keys are *not* const, otherwise you wouldn't be able to assign one
set to another set without reallocating every element.
std::set::iterator only gives you const *access* to the elements, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92224
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92207
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
A bit more trace from the gdb session as evidence.
(gdb) p HeapLimit
'HeapLimit' has unknown type; cast it to its declared type
(gdb) p
$1 = ( *) 0x48f78
(gdb) x/x $1
0x48f78:0x0804a000
(gdb)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92207
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92224
Bug ID: 92224
Summary: Set: Can't be created a set with const template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92223
--- Comment #2 from Lahav Schlesinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Are you talking about 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86_64?
>
> Because "x32" means something completely different:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92223
Bug ID: 92223
Summary: Redundant pushing to stack when passing empty structs
to function (x32)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92213
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
all_hard_regs_bitmap didn't has 68(k0).
first = 0x37fd100 current = 0x37fd100 indx = 0
0x37fd100 next = (nil) prev = (nil) indx = 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
unsigned char *a;
b;
c() {
char *d;
int e;
for (; b; b++) {
e = 7;
for (; e >= 0; e--)
*d++ = a[b] & 1 << e ? '1' : '0';
}
f();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Bug ID: 9
Summary: ice in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92220
--- Comment #3 from John Simon ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> No i think there is one case where what you said is incorrect. When both are
> INT_MIN.
In this case the result will be 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92220
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 92219 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> I'm going to install a patch.
The SPARC failues are fixed indeed.
Thanks.
Rainer
90 matches
Mail list logo
