https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
Bug ID: 93266
Summary: strlen pass could optimize strncpy with known strlen
(src) == 0 into memset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is intentional, we got less aggressive at inlining inline functions for
-O2 (since we do not need to do all inlining we want for -O3 when we have
independent set of attributes).
Indeed -Winline -Werror
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88081
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93265
Bug ID: 93265
Summary: memcmp comparisons of structs wrapping a primitive
type not as compact/efficient as direct comparisons of
the underlying primitive type under -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, other testcases does not reproduce for me. However if they do it seems like
fallout from the change dropping type checking from call statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47651=edit
proposed patch
This is patch I plan to test which fixes the last testcase. It adds warning
about TREE_ADDRESSABLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Btw, on trunk I see it optimized, maybe some recent CTOR "fixing" fixed it
> again? Can you double-check?
>
> If it's fixed again I suggest to add the testcase (ck should be elided
> in the assembly?)
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #16 from Leon Winter ---
I just checked again with gcc 9.2.1 and the issue disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, i get an ICE because type is not compatible with its main variant. the two
types are:
constant 384>
unit-size constant 48>
align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Bug ID: 93264
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at
cfgrtl.c:4522
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested trunk fix on top of the PR93249 fix, so won't apply cleanly to older
stuff, will need reindentation:
--- tree-ssa-dse.c.jj2 2020-01-14 12:13:39.900589819 +0100
+++ tree-ssa-dse.c 2020-01-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #22)
> I've been going through the test cases here. IIUC, the one in comment #10
> is a separate issue and should get its own bug. (Arguably, so is the one in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93263
Bug ID: 93263
Summary: -fno-automatic and RECURSIVE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to BCartier from comment #5)
> Thanks for the heads up, nice to know a fix could be possible.
>
> As for the const reference in doStuff, do you mean
>
> void __attribute__((noinline))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #5 from BCartier ---
Thanks for the heads up, nice to know a fix could be possible.
As for the const reference in doStuff, do you mean
void __attribute__((noinline)) doStuff(const struct TestStruct )
{
...
}
?
By doing so,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Bug ID: 93262
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] DSE memstar call trimming
affecting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE since r24
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The problem is here:
> /* Also strip a TARGET_EXPR that would force an extra copy. */
> if (TREE_CODE (*arg_p) == TARGET_EXPR)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93261
Bug ID: 93261
Summary: fold strstr(a, b) to zero when b is longer than a
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is here:
/* Also strip a TARGET_EXPR that would force an extra copy. */
if (TREE_CODE (*arg_p) == TARGET_EXPR)
{
tree init = TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (*arg_p);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> "Proven not to contain any zeros in the first N bytes" where N is the source
> offset in strncpy, would suggest the strlen pass might be more suitable for
> this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65155
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
"Proven not to contain any zeros in the first N bytes" where N is the source
offset in strncpy, would suggest the strlen pass might be more suitable for
this transformation than DSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. Just note that even the testing could be done when libcuda.so can't be
dlopened, and in that case the test that need it should be UNSUPPORTED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
Bug ID: 93260
Summary: Deal with missing CUDA etc. installation in libgomp
'-lcuda' etc. test cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47650=edit
gcc10-pr93249.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way this is from the email thread that added that option
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-07/msg00054.html):
The code for deprecated items is still present and can sometimes
be used via the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92029
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90838, which changed state.
Bug 90838 Summary: Detect table-based ctz implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
Apologies, I was misled by something else; that option does affect the result.
However, this change in behaviour isn't mentioned in release notes, the error
message doesn't point to that option, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #3 from Dave Love ---
You wrote:
> Do you read the document that comes with your compiler?
Do you appreciate how that sort of response sounds is likely to drive
people off (not for the first time)?
I read two sets of release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93259
Bug ID: 93259
Summary: Unsized temporary array initialization problem
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91955
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's what I'm proposing:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-truncation-1.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-truncation-1.C
index 8f5e7da2c2e..8e2491ca2b3 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #1 from BCartier ---
Hello, I see this bug has been marked as unconfirmed, are there any updates
about this issue ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81095
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-06-15 00:00:00 |2020-1-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Bug ID: 93258
Summary: [10 regression] Missed constant folding from
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b8df3e421b56bb7853a158b889f5e45611fd31f
commit r10-5940-g6b8df3e421b56bb7853a158b889f5e45611fd31f
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33)
> Something like init-regs I'd not like. But the above should be
> detectable by store-merging in some way - store-merging can
> merge across
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed
101 - 156 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
