https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > For g++ bug2.cc -std=c++17 -O1 -mavx -ftree-loop-vectorize, it started with
> > r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87.
>
> A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> For g++ bug2.cc -std=c++17 -O1 -mavx -ftree-loop-vectorize, it started with
> r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87.
Are you sure about this bisection? Reverting this doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49911
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49911&action=edit
gcc11-pr98463.patch
Untested fix. Before the PR49290 changes, the empty_base = true; stuff has
been
guarded on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Topi Miettinen from comment #4)
> Sorry, I didn't check the ABI. It seems that %r11 and maybe %r10 should be
> usable:
%r11 is already used as PROFILE_COUNT_REGISTER for !NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS
targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > I don't. LIBUBSAN_SPEC comes from gcc.c, while the libstdc++ stuff comes
> > from cp/g++spec.c and the ordering be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #4 from Topi Miettinen ---
Sorry, I didn't check the ABI. It seems that %r11 and maybe %r10 should be
usable:
Figure 3.4: Register Usage
Register
Usage
Preserved across function calls
%r10
temporary register, used for passing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-07
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-07
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98501
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fa1430d1cfc4b373bfde9e3a749a5255a589643
commit r9-9159-g1fa1430d1cfc4b373bfde9e3a749a5255a589643
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-12-21 00:00:00 |2021-1-7
Target|powerpc64-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98581
Bug ID: 98581
Summary: unexpected reassociation for umin/umax ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> > and by the time of output __fentry__ in gcc, register is already accocated,
> > is there any regs supposed to be safe in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
template struct A { constexpr A () : a() {} [[no_unique_address]]
T a; };
template struct B;
template
struct B : B<1, V...>, A {};
template struct B : A {};
template struct C : B<0, h..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580
Bug ID: 98580
Summary: ICE with -fanalyzer and LTO: tree check: expected
class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
useless_type_conversion_p
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49910&action=edit
gcc11-pr98481.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> and by the time of output __fentry__ in gcc, register is already accocated,
> is there any regs supposed to be safe in the entry of function? or we need
> to spill re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98568
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, likely during
1598 cp_walk_tree_without_duplicates (&subtype, find_abi_tags_r, &data);
we should avoid walking into the template parameters.
I guess either it can be done by setting *walk_subtrees in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e780e940a9f53b93bdf6bd70fdb3ec2b287a52e3
commit r9-9158-ge780e940a9f53b93bdf6bd70fdb3ec2b287a52e3
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e780e940a9f53b93bdf6bd70fdb3ec2b287a52e3
commit r9-9158-ge780e940a9f53b93bdf6bd70fdb3ec2b287a52e3
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
I see this problem in C++ on x86_64. Source code attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #41 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc46d988ab1c496acc7e082286e21998a992df42
commit r10-9230-gfc46d988ab1c496acc7e082286e21998a992df42
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #40 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10dde773d2d6866cbca3f7323a64130339e36007
commit r10-9229-g10dde773d2d6866cbca3f7323a64130339e36007
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10dde773d2d6866cbca3f7323a64130339e36007
commit r10-9229-g10dde773d2d6866cbca3f7323a64130339e36007
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r10-6517-g1e042b396e2a84e3ee17bc52def1bf241cb7d248
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98579
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98559
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Topi Miettinen from comment #0)
> GCC on x86_64 with `-mfentry` generates invalid code for `-mcmodel=large`.
> The call to `__fentry__` uses plain `call` instruction, but this can only
> address lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
$ valgrind /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/clang_delta
--query-instances=replace-function-def-with-decl wxe_funcs.ii
==48917== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==48917== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4)
> Hi,
> It seems to work on my machine for x86_64.
> Compiling with -O3 (or -O2),
> .optimized dump shows:
>
> v4si foo (v4si b, v4si a)
> {
> v4si c;
> vector(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Klose ---
to reproduce the clang_delta segfault:
$ cat wxe_funcs.ii
static __typeof() a __attribute__((__weakref__("pthread_mutex_destroy")))
$ /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/clang_delta
--query-instances=replace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
Emil Jiří Tywoniak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emil at tywoniak dot eu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't surprise me that creduce/cvise is uneasy about it, because that
testcase really can't be reduced.
You'd need to reduce by hand, e.g. to:
#define A(n) if (a[n]) a[n]++;
#define B(n) A(n##0) A(n##1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Note that C-Vise now reports similarly to C-Reduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98579
Bug ID: 98579
Summary: ICE: in output_constructor_regular_field, at
varasm.c:5491
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98576
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to JeanHeyd Meneide from comment #4)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/560784.html
>
> A new version of GCC will include the execution charset and wide execution
> charset as a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98576
JeanHeyd Meneide changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||phdofthehouse at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
It seems to work on my machine for x86_64.
Compiling with -O3 (or -O2),
.optimized dump shows:
v4si foo (v4si b, v4si a)
{
v4si c;
vector(4) _1;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98568
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d02a8b63e5aef49ab6973c64a2225236895763a1
commit r11-6515-gd02a8b63e5aef49ab6973c64a2225236895763a1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 49907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49907&action=edit
preprocessed source
attaching the 50% reduced file, still showing the clang_delta issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97978
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Can this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98578
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98578
Bug ID: 98578
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since
r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
fyi, creduce segfaults on arm-linux-gnueabihf trying to reduce this:
$ creduce ./cr2.sh wxe_funcs.ii
===< 26689 >===
running 4 interestingness tests in parallel
===< pass_unifdef :: 0 >===
===< pass_comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
--- Comment #3 from N Schaeffer ---
I'd like to add that when you say "vectorization of the basic block", the code
generated is actually worse than non-vectorized naive code: it handles all
loads and arithmetic operations in scalar mode (v*sd ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98558
federico changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98499
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > Possibly in discovering pure/constness. See uses of
> > gimple_call_return_slot_opt_p in tree-ssa-structal
101 - 172 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
