https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Otherwise it LGTM, so please post it this week, I'd really like to see it in
GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Oh, and there is another case I'm worried about. While match.pd has the
> /* X == C (or X & Z == Y | C) is impossible if ~nonzero(X) & C != 0. */
> (for cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119
--- Comment #1 from Peakulorain ---
Here is my patch to fix this program.
diff -Nurp a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md 2019-12-20 03:16:50.706754343 +0800
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55820
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Czarnota ---
(In reply to Dominik Czarnota from comment #2)
> Six years later this is still unconfirmed :(.
Seven*. Oh those off by ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 23:58:35 2020
New Revision: 279849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279849=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/68020
* gfortran.dg/impled_shape_5.f90: Use dg-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55820
Dominik Czarnota changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominik.b.czarnota+bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93139
Bug ID: 93139
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/implied_shape_5.f90 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not really a bug - C++20 isn't final yet, and we don't claim full support for
the current draft (not even close).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93120
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also this is not a valid bug report. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs clearly says we
need you to provide the actual code, not a URL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Alternatively, we should generate the patterns we have by name, not indirectly
like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #4 from JeanHeyd Meneide ---
I changed the library test cases, but maybe there needs to be something that
helps the library developers tag a constant evaluation function as something
that should be ran later / deferred. I don't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and there is another case I'm worried about. While match.pd has the
/* X == C (or X & Z == Y | C) is impossible if ~nonzero(X) & C != 0. */
(for cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(cmp:c
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With this version of gcc10 (svn rev 279832):
gcc version 10.0.0 20200102 (experimental) (GCC)
This source does not compile:
-- x.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 47581 [details]
> gcc10-pr93122.patch
>
> Untested fix. With additional -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables, it doesn't
> ICE, but just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
>
> Formatting, s/(/ (/g
>
> >}
> >(if (wi::eq(mask & cst1,mask & cst2))
>
> Ditto, also add space before ,
>
> > (cmp (bit_and @0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> so something like:
> (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
> cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (bitop
>(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask1) INTEGER_CST@CST1)
>
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With this version of gcc10 (svn rev 279832):
gcc version 10.0.0 20200102 (experimental) (GCC)
this source gives an ICE when compiled with -O:
-- x.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note the generic version of this is:
> ((A & N) == CST1) & ((A & M) == CST2)
>
> if (N) == (N), then
>(A&(N|M)) == (CST1|CST2)
> else
> false
And now for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the generic version of this is:
((A & N) == CST1) & ((A & M) == CST2)
if (N) == (N), then
(A&(N|M)) == (CST1|CST2)
else
false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65428
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #2 from Joel Holdsworth ---
Are you saying that if the GIMPLE were defined for the intrinsics, then the
optimizer would eliminate them automatically? Or is there more to it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 17:36:50 2020
New Revision: 279841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279841=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/90677
* cp-objcp-common.c (identifier_global_tag): Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 17:29:59 2020
New Revision: 279840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279840=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/90677
* cp-objcp-common.c (identifier_global_tag): Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93110
--- Comment #3 from Khem Raj ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 47579 [details]
> gcc10-pr93110.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Thanks, I tried it out and it fixes the syslinux and grub failures on x86_64
that I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93030
--- Comment #1 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the report -- there's a fix for this on the og9 branch, but I'm not
sure if I've posted that upstream (the GCN worker-partitioning patches were
separated out from the deep-copy patches,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #6 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Apologies for breakage. This part of the patch was originally from the og9
patch supporting Fortran polymorphic class pointers posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00752.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91579
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
The problem here is that we produce ipa-cp clone to devirtualize v::av which
also lead to devirtualization of m::av, but we miss this optimization. After
inlining we remove m::av and while producing the ipa-cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Bug ID: 93136
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vmx/ops.c and several other
test break after r279772
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jan 2 15:40:51 2020
New Revision: 279835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279835=gcc=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR68020 – Fix implied-shape handling for rank > 2
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Bug ID: 93135
Summary: g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C fails on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Bug ID: 93134
Summary: [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault in ISL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92994
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> @Richi:
>
> About the param_max_fields_for_field_sensitive:
> Do I understand it correctly that the param is used in IPA PTA for global
> variables? If so, we can't easily use Optimization keyword as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93133
Bug ID: 93133
Summary: __builtin_isgreater emits trapping compare instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47581=edit
gcc10-pr93122.patch
Untested fix. With additional -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables, it doesn't ICE,
but just emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So ((a&8) != 0 ) | ((a&2) != 0 ) is already handled by the generic "(x != 0 | y
!= 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) != 0".
Anyways this is for tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> We are still in stage3, why not do it now?
> I don't see the point in handling &/== and |/!= in the same simplification
> when you do something completely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93132
Bug ID: 93132
Summary: bogus `attribute((access))' warning when size-index is
specified
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Something like:
(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(bitop:c
(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask1) INTEGER_CST@CST1)
(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask2) INTEGER_CST@CST2))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Bug ID: 93131
Summary: ((a&8) == 8) && ((a&2) == 2) is not optimized to
(a&(8|2)) == *
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of localalias is thunk that
is not recursive.
> thing we can do is to write a simple case to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93118
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 47578 [details]
> gcc10-pr93118.patch
Thanks, I did not expect this to be fixed for GCC 10 really :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93130
Bug ID: 93130
Summary: PCC simple memset not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93110
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47579=edit
gcc10-pr93110.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to fxue from comment #8)
> [...]
> Then is there a case that a ipcp_lattice be shared by different cgraph nodes?
No, there isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93128
--- Comment #1 from Jens Seifert ---
Wrong number range for Power7: -16..15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93129
Bug ID: 93129
Summary: PPC memset not using vector instruction on >= Power8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93087
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 09:15:00 2020
New Revision: 279829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279829=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/93087
* predict.c (compute_function_frequency): Don't call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93118
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93128
Bug ID: 93128
Summary: PPC small floating point constants can be constructed
using vector operations
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93127
Bug ID: 93127
Summary: PPC altivec vec_promote creates unnecessary xxpermdi
instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93127
Jens Seifert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-*-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Jens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93126
Bug ID: 93126
Summary: PPC altivec -Wunused-but-set-variable false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93125
Bug ID: 93125
Summary: ICE in insert_regs, at cse.c:1128
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93124
Bug ID: 93124
Summary: ICE in df_install_refs at df-scan.c:2376
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
78 matches
Mail list logo
