[Bug c/58240] GCC optimize strncmp when N=1 incorrectly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58240 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to shiyan from comment #7) (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4) -fno-builtin (or some better such option)? strncmp is a standard function, your code redefining

[Bug c/58240] GCC optimize strncmp when N=1 incorrectly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58240 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to shiyan from comment #7) Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, I know -fno-builtin can work around it. I can think of many possible ways to work around itbut whatever,

[Bug c/58240] GCC optimize strncmp when N=1 incorrectly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58240 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug bootstrap/58242] New: [4.9 regression] linux-android.c:40:7: error: 'OPTION_BIONIC' was not declared in this scope breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242 Bug ID: 58242 Summary: [4.9 regression] linux-android.c:40:7: error: 'OPTION_BIONIC' was not declared in this scope breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux Product: gcc

[Bug c/58240] GCC optimize strncmp when N=1 incorrectly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58240 --- Comment #13 from shiyan shiyan2016 at 126 dot com --- Hi all, Thank you for all your explanation. This seems more like a philosophical discussion :) I do can understand what GCC is doing (as I mentioned, it may be optimized to *s1-*s2).

[Bug bootstrap/58242] [4.9 regression] linux-android.c:40:7: error: 'OPTION_BIONIC' was not declared in this scope breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242 Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aivchenk at gmail

[Bug tree-optimization/58243] New: Suboptimal structure initialization with tree-sra

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58243 Bug ID: 58243 Summary: Suboptimal structure initialization with tree-sra Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug target/58208] dequestd::string 32-bit -O3 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 --- Comment #9 from Tammy Hsu tammy at Cadence dot COM --- I tried to run the g++ build on RHEL 5.5 on a RHEL 6.3 system, import seg fault. I then tried to rebuild gcc481 on RHEL 6.3 and rerun the testcase, it still crash. The glibc on RHEL 6.3

[Bug c/35649] Incorrect printf warning: expect double has float

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35649 Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug regression/58244] New: global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 Bug ID: 58244 Summary: global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Why do you think this is a bug?

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #2 from Martin Konôpka martin.konopka at stuba dot sk --- It it is confirmed, it is a very serious performance issue. In my test the code with the global declaration executed about 6 times slower than the code with the local

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- With auxval local, the compiler knows that computing suma, etc is useless and removes all that code, including the calls to sin. So you would like the compiler to do the same for a

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- gcc was able to optimize your code to make it 6000 times faster. How is that a regression?

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #5 from Martin Konôpka martin.konopka at stuba dot sk --- I do not fully understand the question. In both cases I used the same optimisation (-O2). My other comment a while ago was lost. I must retype it.

[Bug target/58208] dequestd::string 32-bit -O3 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #6 from Martin Konôpka martin.konopka at stuba dot sk --- (I am sorry that I do not understand internals of compilers.) I first hit the issue in a bigger code having more than 11000 lines. First I did not understand at all what is

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- Now try the same code with -O0.

[Bug target/58208] dequestd::string 32-bit -O3 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 --- Comment #11 from Tammy Hsu tammy at Cadence dot COM --- Thank you. Yes, on the fedora 19 systems, I don't have these 3 i686 rpms installed. I will add them. Do you have any comments on the crash issue we have on CentOS 5.8 or RHEL 5.5/RHEL

[Bug c++/39057] ICE with default argument in friend declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39057 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 --- Comment #5 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org --- And your remark is good too and will avoid me to spend some time on this idea. Standard requirements regarding validity of iterators won't let us have iterators invalidated because

[Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58244 --- Comment #8 from Martin Konôpka martin.konopka at stuba dot sk --- Yes, I understand now. Thanks. The lines with the sin() functions were not evaluated with the local declaration. My apologies for reporting the false bug. I will try to close

[Bug other/58238] cc1 crashes when built for ms-dos cross-compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58238 --- Comment #2 from DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com --- Please try the attached patch. I tested it with a simple #include stdint.h but we made the type names exact matches (way back when) for a reason...

[Bug other/58238] cc1 crashes when built for ms-dos cross-compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58238 DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug middle-end/58245] New: -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245 Bug ID: 58245 Summary: -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/58245] -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245 --- Comment #1 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx --- One more thing: I would be happy with either of two solutions, either: (1) Checking the canary before calling a noreturn function, just like performing a check before a tail-call, or

[Bug middle-end/58245] -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- The best solution: Don't use the same triplet as the GNU (glibc) one. Have musl have its own triplet.

[Bug middle-end/58245] -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245 --- Comment #3 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx --- We already do that; the patch is in the musl-cross repo here: https://bitbucket.org/GregorR/musl-cross or https://github.com/GregorR/musl-cross However, we want the stack-protector

[Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 --- Comment #6 from Kenton Varda temporal at gmail dot com --- Yep, I realize that erase_after would need to be added to the standard. I was just speculating that it may be something the standard committee should consider. I've long since solved

[Bug target/57927] -march=core-avx2 different than -march=native on INTEL Haswell (i7-4700K)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57927 Christian Widmer shadow at umbrox dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shadow at

[Bug tree-optimization/58246] New: wrong code at -O1 and above (affecting 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and trunk)

and above in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes. $ gcc-trunk -v gcc version 4.9.0 20130826 (experimental) [trunk revision 201986] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c $ a.out 1 $ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c $ a.out 0 $ gcc-4.8 -O1 small.c $ a.out 0 $ gcc-4.7 -O1 small.c $ a.out 0 $ gcc-4.6 -O1 small.c $ a.out 0

[Bug tree-optimization/58247] New: ICE in tree_unroll_loops_completely at -O3 (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

. This is a regression from 4.8.x. It is likely a duplicate of 57592, although the stack traces are somewhat different. $ gcc-trunk -v gcc version 4.9.0 20130826 (experimental) [trunk revision 201986] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O2 -c reduced.c $ gcc-4.8 -O3 -c reduced.c $ gcc-trunk -O3 -c reduced.c reduced.c