[Bug rtl-optimization/97170] Wrong optimization in fwprop pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97170 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/97170] New: Wrong optimization in fwprop pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97170 Bug ID: 97170 Summary: Wrong optimization in fwprop pass Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/80456] calling constexpr member function from volatile-qualified member function: error: ‘this’ is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456 Dmitry Lebed changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lebed.dmitry at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/97127] FMA3 code transformation leads to slowdown on Skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127 --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Michael_S from comment #6) > Why do you see it as addition of peephole pattern? > I see it as removal. Like, "do what's written in the source and don't try to > be tricky". > Probably, I am too

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- Ah. Is there no better way to detect GCC impostors? Oh well. Since we require 4.5 as bootstrap compiler, this makes no difference at all for compilers that truthfully claim to be GCC, so it has my

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- It can be anything > 4.2 (because clang pretends to be GCC 4.2). 4.5 was just because the other altivec section was >= 4.5. PR45381 contains some details about that.

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yeah, good point. So either we can convert to the normal intrinsics, or (much easier) check we are building with GCC at all. But why 4.5? Do earlier versions not work?

[Bug jit/97169] [11 Regression] Most jit.dg tests segfaulting (modref_summaries finalizer?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Root cause analysis here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554549.html

[Bug c++/96652] Segmentation fault with instantiate_class_template_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96652 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/97156] Missed optimization [x86-64] tzcnt unnecessarily zeros out destination register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/96652] Segmentation fault with instantiate_class_template_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96652 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4e4e163c79ca3fca265b85f44b869cb54e802b3 commit r11-3371-gc4e4e163c79ca3fca265b85f44b869cb54e802b3 Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug libstdc++/97167] [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/97167] [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7285587186bac5692171d7493e29e16c729281d commit r9-8932-ge7285587186bac5692171d7493e29e16c729281d Author: Jonathan Wakely

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/97159] [11 Regression] segfault in modref_may_conflict

Recursion is handled in normal compilation (we analyze the function and while hitting the recursive call we skip the summary). I suppose here the problem is missing LTO and offloading. With LTO lto summaries (that include types) are streamed out while they are turned into non-lto summaries at

[Bug tree-optimization/97159] [11 Regression] segfault in modref_may_conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- Recursion is handled in normal compilation (we analyze the function and while hitting the recursive call we skip the summary). I suppose here the problem is missing LTO and offloading. With LTO lto summaries

[Bug jit/97169] [11 Regression] FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug jit/97169] [11 Regression] FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/97063] [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when vector (step size is negative) * matrix

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Having looked at the tree-dump, I am not sure if it is a FE or a library issue. I appears that the negative stride miscalculates the base or offset of the array probably by one: program p

[Bug c++/96745] [concepts] internal compiler error: in type_memfn_rqual, at cp/typeck.c:10389

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96745 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/97167] [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebf259b243069e77dc7199072304b455e8fcb865 commit r10-8789-gebf259b243069e77dc7199072304b455e8fcb865 Author: Jonathan

[Bug jit/97169] New: [11 Regression] FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169 Bug ID: 97169 Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug plugins/97168] New: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 Bug ID: 97168 Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c Product: gcc

[Bug c++/97145] Sanitizer pointer-subtract breaks constexpr functions subtracting pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc13106e0414b86af8f6878e7681e6a959921b9e commit r11-3368-gbc13106e0414b86af8f6878e7681e6a959921b9e Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug libstdc++/97167] [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49ff88bd0d8a36a9e903f01ce05685cfe07dee5d commit r11-3367-g49ff88bd0d8a36a9e903f01ce05685cfe07dee5d Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libffi/97166] libffi build issue when compiling with -mcpu=power10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97166 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.0 --- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner

[Bug libstdc++/97167] [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.4.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/97167] New: [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167 Bug ID: 97167 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in filesystem::path Product: gcc Version: 9.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libffi/97166] New: libffi build issue when compiling with -mcpu=power10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97166 Bug ID: 97166 Summary: libffi build issue when compiling with -mcpu=power10 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/61551] [NEON] alter costs to allow use of post-indexed addressing modes for VLD{2..4}/VST{2..4}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61551 cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/95654] nvptx offloading: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/pr66199-5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95654 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f74c87f85f510248874cb90ad0b0527b015034b9 commit r11-3363-gf74c87f85f510248874cb90ad0b0527b015034b9 Author: Tobias Burnus Date:

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Well, libcpp isn't using the standard Altivec intrinsics, but their gcc underlying implementation. Looking at clang altivec.h, I see they use vector keyword everywhere and not sure what exactly they map it

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Guess we need something like: > -#elif defined(_ARCH_PWR8) && defined(__ALTIVEC__) > +#elif (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) && defined(_ARCH_PWR8) &&

[Bug c++/94695] Implement -Wrange-loop-analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94695 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/97165] [9/10/11 Regression] Infinite error stream on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Similar case: template class p

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] [8/9/10/11 Regression] incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Indeed, if in the above testcase one uses b[40] instead of b[64], then it is rejected with that error message. Note, this isn't a FE diagnostics, but stor-layout.c one. We won't be able to diagnose this if

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] [8/9/10/11 Regression] incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/97165] [9/10/11 Regression] Infinite error stream on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-09-22

[Bug c++/97165] [9/10/11 Regression] Infinite error stream on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.4 Summary|Infinite error

[Bug c++/97165] New: Infinite error stream on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165 Bug ID: 97165 Summary: Infinite error stream on invalid code Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > So just in case the following fixes it we've nailed it (somewhere I have a > verifier written...) > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-predcom.c b/gcc/tree-predcom.c >

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- So just in case the following fixes it we've nailed it (somewhere I have a verifier written...) diff --git a/gcc/tree-predcom.c b/gcc/tree-predcom.c index b1d6e63559c..2f41ad222a0 100644 ---

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Target

[Bug testsuite/97146] [11 regression] ipa/ipa-sra-*.c fail since r11-3303 (g:6450f07388f9fe575a489c9309c36012b17b88b0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] [8/9/10/11 Regression] incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|incorrect offset on |[8/9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug sanitizer/90337] sanitizer_linux.cc Fails to compile on Illumos-derived Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337 --- Comment #11 from WHR --- Created attachment 49259 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49259=edit gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-madvise-fix.diff Replace non-standard madvise(2) with posix_madvise(3).

[Bug sanitizer/90337] sanitizer_linux.cc Fails to compile on Illumos-derived Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337 --- Comment #10 from WHR --- Created attachment 49258 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49258=edit gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-solaris-libelf-h-without-file-offset-bits-64.diff Solaris libelf.h doesn't work with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64

[Bug sanitizer/90337] sanitizer_linux.cc Fails to compile on Illumos-derived Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337 --- Comment #9 from WHR --- Created attachment 49257 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49257=edit gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-linux-procfs-fix.diff Limit this Linux procfs code to Linux only.

[Bug sanitizer/90337] sanitizer_linux.cc Fails to compile on Illumos-derived Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337 WHR changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msl023508 at gmail dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug bootstrap/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 --- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina --- Hmm it compiles for me with GCC 10.2 built from e939674db6fda62a98675d20b95175ec4ba81140

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Reduced testcase for -O2: typedef struct { int *a; char b[64]; } A __attribute__((aligned (64))); struct B { A d[4]; } b; void foo (void); int * bar (void) { struct B *h = if (h->d[1].a) foo ();

[Bug tree-optimization/97146] [11 regression] ipa/ipa-sra-*.c fail since r11-3303 (g:6450f07388f9fe575a489c9309c36012b17b88b0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/96979] [9/10/11 Regression] Switch with case values derived from constexpr function takes unreasonable time to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96979 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Switch

[Bug tree-optimization/96979] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Switch with case values derived from constexpr function takes unreasonable time to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96979 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6df6039e9180c580945266302ec14047d358364 commit r11-3357-gc6df6039e9180c580945266302ec14047d358364 Author: Martin Liska Date: Tue

[Bug c/95777] Allow specifying more than one target options at the same time in target and target_clones attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/96245] Failure to optimize arithmetic pattern in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|marxin at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/97164] New: incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164 Bug ID: 97164 Summary: incorrect offset on structure member where type of that member has aligned attribute Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Hm, is it really a GCC 11 regression? I see another ICE with the oldest revision I have: 9d55066c88b4c276(09 Oct 2014 07:40)(fxcoud...@gcc.gnu.org) scflib.fppized.f: In function 'symh.constprop':

[Bug fortran/97162] [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug target/96814] [11 Regression] wrong code with -march=cascadelake since r11-1445-g502d63b6d6141597

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- > > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c > index 1f861630225..0cc80adf632 100644 > --- a/gcc/fold-const.c > +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c > @@ -12581,7 +12581,9 @@ fold_ternary_loc (location_t loc, enum

[Bug libstdc++/97163] Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 --- Comment #1 from Piotr Kubaj --- This is on FreeBSD head, which uses ELFv2.

[Bug libstdc++/97163] New: Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163 Bug ID: 97163 Summary: Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64 Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/97162] New: [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162 Bug ID: 97162 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess benchmark Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #25 from 康 珊 --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24) > On September 22, 2020 1:14:48 PM GMT+02:00, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com > wrote: > >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 > > > >--- Comment #23

[Bug target/71233] [ARM, AArch64] missing AdvSIMD intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233 --- Comment #32 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:874bdcd54b53283a82418649ea7457c1d6804562 commit r8-10526-g874bdcd54b53283a82418649ea7457c1d6804562 Author: Vlad Lazar

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 22, 2020 1:14:48 PM GMT+02:00, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 > >--- Comment #23 from 康 珊 --- >It seems that gcc will

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #23 from 康 珊 --- It seems that gcc will use "_ZGVeN8vl8l8_sincos" which doesn't exit in libmvec. /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccTYyEZM.o: in function `main': /home/pnp/ks/test_sincos.c:38: undefined reference to `_ZGVeN8vl8l8_sincos'

[Bug target/71233] [ARM, AArch64] missing AdvSIMD intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233 --- Comment #30 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4703be185b422f637deebd3bb9222a41c8023d6 commit r11-3353-gd4703be185b422f637deebd3bb9222a41c8023d6 Author: Kyrylo Tkachov Date:

[Bug target/71233] [ARM, AArch64] missing AdvSIMD intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233 --- Comment #29 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa9ad35dae03dcb20c4ccb50ba1b351a8ab77970 commit r11-3352-gfa9ad35dae03dcb20c4ccb50ba1b351a8ab77970 Author: Kyrylo Tkachov Date:

[Bug target/71233] [ARM, AArch64] missing AdvSIMD intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233 --- Comment #31 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30957092db46d8798e632feefb5df634488dbb33 commit r11-3354-g30957092db46d8798e632feefb5df634488dbb33 Author: Kyrylo Tkachov Date:

[Bug target/97161] [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3 since r8-4308-g13494fcb3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161 --- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan --- Ah, apologies for the noise - thanks for clarifying.

[Bug tree-optimization/97159] [11 Regression] segfault in modref_may_conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Priority|P3

[Bug target/97160] Regression from GCC 8 optimizing to sincos on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #1

[Bug target/97161] [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3 since r8-4308-g13494fcb3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/97161] [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3 since r8-4308-g13494fcb3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64 Target Milestone|---

[Bug gcov-profile/96913] [10 regression] gcov TOPN streaming is incorrect for shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96913 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11 regression] gcov |[10 regression] gcov TOPN

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to 康 珊 from comment #21) > $ gcc -m64 -g -O2 -fopenmp-simd -fPIC -Wall test_sincos.c -o test_sincos -lm > -march=skylake-avx512 -ffast-math -ftree-loop-vectorize Try adding -fno-builtin-sincos

[Bug gcov-profile/96913] [10/11 regression] gcov TOPN streaming is incorrect for shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96913 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ecf368f4b4223fb2df4f3887429dfbb48852e38 commit r11-3351-g4ecf368f4b4223fb2df4f3887429dfbb48852e38 Author: Sergei Trofimovich

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #21 from 康 珊 --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15) > OpenMP has a way to express this, > #pragma omp declare simd notinbranch linear(y,z) > double sincos (double x, double *y, double *z); > As can be seen on -O2

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #20 from 康 珊 --- Created attachment 49255 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49255=edit test source file

[Bug target/97127] FMA3 code transformation leads to slowdown on Skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127 --- Comment #6 from Michael_S --- Why do you see it as addition of peephole pattern? I see it as removal. Like, "do what's written in the source and don't try to be tricky". Probably, I am too removed from how compilers work :( Or, may be,

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17) > Can one actually define multiple OMP SIMD variants for a single function? Yes.

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #16) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15) > > Unfortunately, I think glibc currently defines sincos in math-vector.h the > > unuseful way with just simd

[Bug c++/97151] GCC fails to optimize away uselessly allocated arrays (C++)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > (IIRC there's > only ever a single argument to operator delete). That's not always true. See -fsized-deallocation

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #17 from Richard Biener --- IIRC cepxi has the complication that we have to define the mangling for vector _Complex double. But cexpi is what the vectorizer currently sees, of course (we can of course vectorize it as sincos with

[Bug tree-optimization/97159] segfault in modref_may_conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159 --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries --- Fib is a recursive function, and the problem occurs while handling a recursion call.

[Bug target/97161] New: [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3 since r8-4308-g13494fcb3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161 Bug ID: 97161 Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3 since r8-4308-g13494fcb3 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/97151] GCC fails to optimize away uselessly allocated arrays (C++)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/96803] std::tuple chooses wrong constructor for uses-allocator construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/96803] std::tuple chooses wrong constructor for uses-allocator construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:132ddcc78c118a6ab52063193462bf2a6dbdae32 commit r9-8931-g132ddcc78c118a6ab52063193462bf2a6dbdae32 Author: Jonathan Wakely

[Bug libstdc++/96803] std::tuple chooses wrong constructor for uses-allocator construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e86f0926f8de014cb0b0218442812e9f3ea8e95 commit r8-10525-g6e86f0926f8de014cb0b0218442812e9f3ea8e95 Author: Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/96803] std::tuple chooses wrong constructor for uses-allocator construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a981195bd80ad64475bbc24b7a4d222a6a6eff5 commit r10-8787-g5a981195bd80ad64475bbc24b7a4d222a6a6eff5 Author: Jonathan

[Bug target/97160] New: Regression from GCC 8 optimizing to sincos on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160 Bug ID: 97160 Summary: Regression from GCC 8 optimizing to sincos on ppc64le Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/97159] segfault in modref_may_conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Segfaults because tt is NULL: ... Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x012b1a69 in modref_may_conflict (tt=0x0, ref=0x7fffd8d0, tbaa_p=true) at

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #16

[Bug tree-optimization/97159] New: segfault in modref_may_conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159 Bug ID: 97159 Summary: segfault in modref_may_conflict Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fweimer at redhat dot com,

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 > > --- Comment #13 from ? ? --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug target/97127] FMA3 code transformation leads to slowdown on Skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127 --- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Michael_S from comment #3) > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2) > > Richard, though register moves are resolved by renaming, they still occupy a > > uop in all stages except

  1   2   >