[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi Alexander, You do not say what the actual target you used is? powerpc-linux, powerpc64-linux, powerpc64le-linux, something else entirely?
[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ams at gnu dot org --- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager --- Does the update on copyright assignment policy affect this at all? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html My reading of this email seems to imply that it does: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236214.html
[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc |powerpc64le CC||amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- The disassembly says this is powerpc64le. Possibly interesting fact: the offsets used above the stack frame are 400, 432, 440, which all correspond to the parameter save area. I don't see any reason that DGEBAL should have a parameter save area though since all parameters can be passed in regs.
[Bug target/100865] New: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865
Bug ID: 100865
Summary: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on
TImode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: crazylht at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 gcc]$ cat /tmp/y.c
extern char *dst;
void
foo (void)
{
__builtin_memset (dst, 12, 16);
}
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -S -O2 -march=skylake-avx512 /tmp/y.c
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 gcc]$ cat y.s
.file "y.c"
.text
.p2align 4
.globl foo
.type foo, @function
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movqdst(%rip), %rax
vmovdqa .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rax)
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
.section.rodata.cst16,"aM",@progbits,16
.align 16
.LC0:
.quad 868082074056920076
.quad 868082074056920076
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210602 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 gcc]$
Also should broadcast from register be used to avoid memory load?
[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Mine, this is bit-field lowering related. I am hoping to get the bit-field lowering into GCC 12.
[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > > Also should broadcast from register be used to avoid memory load? I think yes as long as memory load from constant pool.
[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Created attachment 50905 [details] > Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) > > As I said for the case in this PR, it needs > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571616.html too. > > If you change !b to b; that is "!a ? b : 0", this patch will optimize it. > The other patch is needed to allow to move !b out of the conditional. This patch has one bug in it where we need a convert added. BUT then we run into a different missed optimization issue. _51 = p2_22 <= prephitmp_122; _44 = (logical(kind=4)) _51; _37 = p2_22 > prephitmp_122; _49 = (logical(kind=4)) _37; _38 = _49 & found_p_63; _46 = _38 | _44; This is really just: _51 = p2_22 <= prephitmp_122; _44 = (logical(kind=4)) _51; _46 = found_p_63| _44; That is we don't optimize: (a & ~b) | b into a | b if ~b has been converted already. The other thing I noticed is the cast should not be really needed but nothing removes it; I will look at that later. Note I could rewrite the pattern to do the simplification of the constants manually but I want to try to avoid that.
[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||100864 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- This depends on PR 100864 if I don't want to write out the 4 patterns. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 [Bug 100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals
[Bug tree-optimization/100864] New: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864
Bug ID: 100864
Summary: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Take:
_Bool f(int a, int b, _Bool e)
{
_Bool c = (a > b);
_Bool d = !c;
return (e & d) | c;
}
--- CUT
We get currently:
c_5 = a_3(D) > b_4(D);
_2 = a_3(D) <= b_4(D);
_1 = _2 & e_7(D);
_6 = _1 | c_5;
But this should be optimized to just:
c_5 = a_3(D) <= b_4(D);
_6 = e_7(D) | c_5;
I noticed this while fixing PR 96923.
[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch,
(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
rbitop (bit_ior bit_and)
/* Similar but for comparisons which have been inverted already,
Note it is hard to similulate inverted tcc_comparison due to NaNs
so a double for loop is needed and then compare the inverse code
with the result of invert_tree_comparison is needed. */
(for cmp (tcc_comparison)
(for icmp (tcc_comparison)
(simplify
(bitop:c (rbitop:c (icmp @0 @1) @2) (cmp@3 @0 @1))
(with { enum tree_code ic = invert_tree_comparison
(cmp, HONOR_NANS (@0)); }
(if (ic == icmp)
(bitop @3 @2)))
It is more complex than I had liked but it does solve the issue. There is no
way really of simplifying the pattern either, just because of the way match.pd
works :(
[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++ |middle-end
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks||100406
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning doesn't do anything special with destroying operator delete or any
other kinds of the operators (other than scalar vs array). It triggers for
this test case because it sees the result of ::operator new() being passed to
Widget::operator delete (Widget*). If Widget::operator delete() is inlined
(e.g., declared with attribute always_inline) the warning goes away just as
long as the operator doesn't pass the pointer to the wrong overload of delete.
Alternatively, if Widget defines a non-inline member operator new() that also
prevents the warning because calls to both operators match.
With that, I'm not sure that suppressing the warning for a destroying operator
delete() would be a good solution. It seems to me that the right fix is to
solve the broader problem where one of the operators is inlined and the other
isn't (similar to pr100485, except with the definitions of both operators
available in the same translation unit).
Until/unless a solution is developed I would suggest to either define the
destroying operator delete inline and have it call an out-of-line function to
do the work (as shown below) or to force the inlining of the destroying delete.
struct Widget {
const WidgetKind Kind : 4;
unsigned OtherThings : 28;
Widget(WidgetKind k) : Kind(k) {}
void operator delete(Widget *widget, std::destroying_delete_t) {
destroy_delete (widget);
}
static __attribute__ ((noinline)) void destroy_delete (Widget *);
};
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
[Bug 100406] bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete
[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Note, in looking at Carl's patch, it is only for adding the built-ins. I don't
believe it adds direct support for {,u}divti3 and {,u}moddti3 to implement
these for normal __int128 variables.
[Bug libstdc++/100863] 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_init.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
The problem seems to be that default initialization of an unordered_map/set
only default initializes the allocator object rather than value initializing
it. This means the allocator's state doesn't get implicitly zeroed out, which
causes the assert inside test01() to fail. A potential fix is to make
_Hashtable_alloc's default constructor value initialize the allocator object:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable_policy.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable_policy.h
@@ -1856,7 +1856,10 @@ namespace __detail
using __buckets_alloc_traits =
std::allocator_traits<__buckets_alloc_type>;
using __buckets_ptr = __node_base_ptr*;
- _Hashtable_alloc() = default;
+ _Hashtable_alloc() noexcept(noexcept(__ebo_node_alloc()))
+ : __ebo_node_alloc()
+ { }
+
_Hashtable_alloc(const _Hashtable_alloc&) = default;
_Hashtable_alloc(_Hashtable_alloc&&) = default;
[Bug c/100854] TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote: > This could be considered a bug in TS 18661-3 which stipulates that > __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ take backwards-incompatible values. Either way, it seems TS 18661-3 only talks about FLT_EVAL_METHOD, not __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__. GCC's then uses __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__, __FLT_EVAL_METHOD_TS_18661_3__ and __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__ to determine the value of FLT_EVAL_METHOD, taking account of any -fpermitted-flt-eval-methods option (or other options implying it) passed.
[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861
--- Comment #2 from Joseph C. Sible ---
Wait, if it's just checking whether the calls to operator new and operator
delete match up, then why does adding "virtual ~Widget() {}" make the warning
go away?
[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The virtual dtor forces an out-of-line call to the Grommet dtor which then
calls ::operator delete(), so the warning has nothing to complain about. It
sees this code (compile with -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout):
int main ()
{
void * _3;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_3 = operator new (16);
MEM[(struct Widget *)_3].Kind = 0;
MEM[(struct Grommet *)_3].D.2504._vptr.Widget = [(void
*)&_ZTV7Grommet + 16B];
Grommet::~Grommet (_3);
return 0;
}
whereas with the original test case it sees:
int main ()
{
struct destroying_delete_t D.2584;
void * _3;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_3 = operator new (4);
Widget::operator delete (_3, D.2584); <<< warning here
return 0;
}
[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|2014-01-07 00:00:00 |2021-6-1
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> > Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification time IIRC. Which
> > means "testcases welcome" first, so we can look at them individually.
>
> The GCC one I saw was equivalent of:
> #include
> bool
> m_is_less_than_n (int n, int m)
> {
>return (n==m || m_is_less_than_n (n-1,m));
> }
First we cannot optimize this into a loop until tailc rather than in either
tailr1 or tailr2.
In tailr1, we have:
_2 = m_is_less_than_n (_1, m_7(D));
if (_2 != 0)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
:
# iftmp.0_3 = PHI <1(6), 0(3), 1(2)>
_12 = (_Bool) iftmp.0_3;
While in tailr2, we have:
_18 = m_is_less_than_n (_17, m_6(D));
_4 = (int) _18;
[local count: 1073741825]:
# iftmp.0_3 = PHI <_4(6), 1(3), 1(2), 1(4), 1(5)>
_8 = (_Bool) iftmp.0_3;
It is not until PRE where we remove the casts (to/from int).
[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2021-06-02 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Summary|(a&!b) | b is not opimized |(a&!b) | b is not opimized |to a | b for conditionals |to a | b for comparisons --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The pattern which matches this when this is not a comparison: (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior) rbitop (bit_ior bit_and) /* (x | y) & x -> x */ /* (x & y) | x -> x */ (simplify (bitop:c (rbitop:c @0 @1) @0) @0) /* (~x | y) & x -> x & y */ /* (~x & y) | x -> x | y */ (simplify (bitop:c (rbitop:c (bit_not @0) @1) @0) (bitop @0 @1))) We should be able to add something similar for tcc_comparison/inverted_tcc_comparison_with_nans too.
[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
(insn 6 5 9 2 (set (reg:V1TI 84)
(mem/u/c:V1TI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0 S16 A128]))
"test.c":5:3 1474 {movv1ti_internal}
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V1TI [
(const_wide_int 0xc0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c)
])
For V1TImode, we don't know vec_duplicate of what, it could be (subreg:V1TI
(vec_duplicate:v4si (si)) 0) or (subreg:V1TI (vec_duplicate:v8hi (hi)) 0) or
(subreg:V1TI (vec_duplicate:v16qi (qi)) 0)
[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 50905 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50905=edit Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) As I said for the case in this PR, it needs https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571616.html too. If you change !b to b; that is "!a ? b : 0", this patch will optimize it. The other patch is needed to allow to move !b out of the conditional.
[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org, ||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Carl Love submitted a patch for this on April 26th.
[Bug c/42579] [PATCH] support for obtaining file basename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42579 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon --- Yes, this will be part of gcc-12.
[Bug tree-optimization/100845] [11/12 Regression] False positive for -Werror=maybe-uninitialized since r11-959-gb825a22890740f34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100845 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target Milestone|--- |11.2
[Bug c++/81392] Improve diagnostics for [[fallthrough]] attribute that is missing a semicolon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81392 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/81456] [9/10/11/12 Regression] x86-64 optimizer makes wrong decision when optimizing for size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81456 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/78972] [9/10/11/12 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #20 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/78993] [9/10/11/12 Regression] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c/79412] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/79426] [9/10/11/12 Regression] fortran - internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2251
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79426 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug sanitizer/81601] [9/10/11/12 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #29 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/81951] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE returning 16 byte struct on s390x with -mno-lra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81951 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/82362] [9/10/11/12 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 436.cactusADM ~7% performance deviation with trunk@251713
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82362 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/82405] Function not inlined for switch and suboptimal assembly is generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/82446] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Missed equalities in dr_group_sort_cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82446 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/81958] [9/10/11/12 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in gcc-8, or with -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81958 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug ada/81961] [9/10/11/12 regression] an imported unsized C array in the auto-translated binding raises Storage_Error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81961 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c/82013] better error message for missing semicolon in prototype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82013 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/82064] [9/10/11/12 Regression] [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended derived type via module use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/82258] [9/10/11/12 regression] allocate_zerosize_3.f fails since r251949
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82258 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/79755] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: segfault in cgraph_node::get, at cgraph.h:1261
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79755 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #19 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug ipa/79966] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Test gfortran.dg/pr79966.f90 slow again, inliner hits max-inline-insns-auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/80155] [9/10/11/12 regression] Performance regression with code hoisting enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #49 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug ipa/80277] ipa-icf overlooking functions with identical assemble and semantics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80277 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/80283] [9/10/11/12 Regression] bad SIMD register allocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #34 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/80511] [9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-7.c gcc.dg/pragma-diag-3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/80635] [9/10 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #64 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/80774] [9/10/11/12 Regression][Coarray] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get, at fortran/trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug ipa/80899] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Devirtualization causes incorrect code generation with placement new in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/80929] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Division with constant no more optimized to mult highpart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80929 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/81018] [9/10/11/12 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr14741.f90 FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/79524] [9/10/11/12 Regression] valgrind error for gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fimplicit_none_2.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/79636] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1457
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79636 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/79685] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE on valid code in gfc_match_structur_constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85225] [GCOV] An array reference in the for(;;) loop will lead the loop has incorrect execution times in gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85225 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/85249] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with invalid default parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85249 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85276] [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||', and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice in gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug ipa/85103] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Performance regressions on SPEC with r257582
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #25 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/85046] [9/10/11/12 Regression] cp/name-lookup.c:6175:53: runtime error: member access within null pointer of type 'struct cp_binding_level'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85046 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/85175] [9/10/11/12 regression] false-positive -Wformat-overflow= warning with gcc-8 -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85199] [GCOV] A cond-expr with a iterative variable in a for loop is marked as "-" in gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85199 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85188] [GCOV] a int arrary and a goto statement around the for(;0;) statement will lead to incoccrect code coverage in Gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85188 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85179] [GCOV] A label followed with a blank statement is wrongly marked as not executed in Gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85179 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85201] [GCOV] A statement with two && operators and a comma operator in the for loop body is wrongly marked in gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85201 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84576] [9/10/11/12 Regression] g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84576 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/84674] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Derived type name change makes a program segfault, removing non_overridable helps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84674 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/84753] GCC does not fold xxswapd followed by vperm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84753 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/84779] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Compiling gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90 with -O1 or -Os and -fdefault-integer-8 gives an ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84779 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/84467] Choosing between Integer and NEON for 64-bit operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84467 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/84481] [9/10/11/12 Regression] 429.mcf with -O2 regresses by ~6% and ~4%, depending on tuning, on Zen compared to GCC 7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/84490] [9/10/11/12 regression] 436.cactusADM regressed by 6-8% percent with -Ofast on Zen and Haswell, compared to gcc 7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #17 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84920] Better handling of unmatched/ambiguous calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84920 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84939] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:12382
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84939 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug go/84948] [9/10/11/12 regression] ICE in set_from, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:2660
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84948 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84964] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/85002] [9/10/11/12 Regression][Coarray] ICE in fold_ternary_loc, at fold-const.c:11360
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85336] [GCOV] wrong coverage for builtin functions and "||" logic operators in return statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85336 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85337] [GCOV] inconsistent coverage in switch-case statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85337 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85349] [GCOV] struct varaible definition in while(1) will cause incorrect coverage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85349 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/85352] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Incorrect error diagnosed for dummy argument used in specification expression to subprogram with ENTRY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug gcov-profile/85377] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with label and if(cond) break in while(1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85377 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/84842] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in verify_target_availability, at sel-sched.c:1569
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #21 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug preprocessor/84864] Issues with large line numbers >= 2^31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84864 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/84868] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_offset, at fortran/trans-array.c:208
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84868 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/84869] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_class_len_get, at fortran/trans-expr.c:233
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/84870] [9/10/11/12 Regression][Coarray] ICE in gfc_trans_structure_assign, at fortran/trans-expr.c:7651
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84870 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c/84888] C/C++: Improve wording of unclosed paren/brace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84895] Smarter suggestions for "private" accessor hints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84895 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84917] Verbosity when dealing with nested template data structures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84917 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/84918] Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c++/85004] ambiguous diagnostic: passing ‘const S’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/85005] Redesign and cleanup arm.c wrt to flag_stack_clash_protection and flag_stack_check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85005 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/93832] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:3100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/93834] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug target/93877] [9/10/11/12 Regression] [SH] webkit2gtk fails to build with "internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug fortran/93554] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6035 since r6-4364-ge4834818d22f5c66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/93565] [9/10/11/12 regression] Combine duplicates instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #25 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c/93572] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: q from h referenced in main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug c/93573] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:733
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
[Bug middle-end/93786] [9/10/11/12 Regression] gimplifier ICE with statement expression since r8-5526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
