https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #19 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567395.html
This patch extends variable vec_insert to all 32bit VSX targets including
Power7{BE} {32,64}, Power8{BE}{32, 64}, Power8{LE}{64},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
> FWIW it also segfaults on:
>
> write(unit=6, nml=nam_bu_ru)
>
> I have been digging around with gdb in trans-io.c and I can see the cl is
> 0x0 in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #13 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> And are you recommending that everyone who defines their custom contiguous
> iterators specializes pointer_traits for them? Call it _quite_ annoying...
Definitely not! When you define a contiguous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|address_of() is broken by |to_address() is broken by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-23 00:00:00 |2021-3-26
Known to fail|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #11 from Glen Joseph Fernandes ---
> if it can never be used.
You're misunderstanding. to_address(p) requires that pointer_traits is
valid. It just doesn't need to have a to_address member function.
Example 1. You have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
FWIW it also segfaults on:
write(unit=6, nml=nam_bu_ru)
I have been digging around with gdb in trans-io.c and I can see the cl is 0x0
in the sym->ts.u.cl and I can find nothing else accessible at this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acpy00 at outlook dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99334
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cdfc98a9981768c475fabf069ba4d3e460deb2a
commit r11-7870-g1cdfc98a9981768c475fabf069ba4d3e460deb2a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #12)
> Not sure whether TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE_64BIT is the right MACRO to correctly
> differentiate m32 and m64?
It is not. It looks at TARGET_POWERPC64 only, and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59970
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:980b12cc81979e52f491bf0dfe961d30c07fe864
commit r11-7869-g980b12cc81979e52f491bf0dfe961d30c07fe864
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567215.html
Ah, that is more recent than anything I have replied to :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 59970, which changed state.
Bug 59970 Summary: Bogus Wuninitialized warnings at low optimization levels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59970
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59970
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99796
Bug ID: 99796
Summary: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 fails for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-09 00:00:00 |2021-3-26
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99785
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK,we seem to handle all relevant always_inlines in early passes and then we
produce functions large function with many non-always_inline calls that we
spend a lot of time inlining. This is becuase we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99785
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
We run into the size estimate with always inlines because after inlining we
update the size of caller (because that does matter when inlining normal
functions).
We already have special purepose always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99348
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98352
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #11 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> We don't want the assembly file. If you want to investigate what Rust does,
> you are free to do that. But stop asking us to do that for you. There is no
> GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98352
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c453a817129c2c362726a9773390419f1df7dda3
commit r11-7868-gc453a817129c2c362726a9773390419f1df7dda3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99785
Jeff Muizelaar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmuizelaar at mozilla dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f070ba29803c99a5fe94ed7632d7b8c55593df3
commit r11-7867-g5f070ba29803c99a5fe94ed7632d7b8c55593df3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
more fixes
* d82797420c2 2021-03-26 | c++: imported templates and alias-template changes
[PR 99283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d82797420c2238e31a7a25fe6db6bd05cd37224d
commit r11-7866-gd82797420c2238e31a7a25fe6db6bd05cd37224d
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99781
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99790
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, that doesn't make much sense, maybe r241137 instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99790
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #5)
> so not sure if the issue was really fixed or perhaps just hidden.
Yeah, agree it's probably just gone latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-26
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99787
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d37e2d3ead072ba57e03fcb97a041504a22e721
commit r11-7864-g0d37e2d3ead072ba57e03fcb97a041504a22e721
Author: Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96013
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > > Sometime the test ICE with
> > >
> > > f951: internal compiler error: gfc_code2string(): Bad code
> > >
> > > which cannot be fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Bug ID: 99795
Summary: -Wnarrowing/-Woverflow false-negative in constant
expression in undeduced context
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56670
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 4.8.4, 4.9.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56654
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|2014-09-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96013
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Sometime the test ICE with
> >
> > f951: internal compiler error: gfc_code2string(): Bad code
> >
> > which cannot be fixed by the patch in comment 6.
> >
>
> Don't know anything about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96013
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99334
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I said on the mailing list, the above patch has problems, it relies on the
insn that clobbers_queued_reg_save to be a single hardware instruction so that
a debug info consumer or unwinding can't stop "in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91595
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99794
Bug ID: 99794
Summary: libphobos: Support building on *-*mingw*
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd23b0bb77d483c07bc14f86cc349f82b1b38320
commit r9-9310-gfd23b0bb77d483c07bc14f86cc349f82b1b38320
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1df9bfdd24388adccdb6a07eda6161ef6626dac5
commit r10-9547-g1df9bfdd24388adccdb6a07eda6161ef6626dac5
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56574
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, that's expected (but it's a bug!):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566449.html
Opening a separate issue would be nice, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f5e18db259c8a9790feb1d73bb0348182264f15
commit r11-7849-g8f5e18db259c8a9790feb1d73bb0348182264f15
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91595
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2892e2f70287f961e3bac990b926232cc2a5b123
commit r11-7847-g2892e2f70287f961e3bac990b926232cc2a5b123
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99691
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ab1d637440532d9698daae84cc81a43d36b4aa8
commit r11-7845-g8ab1d637440532d9698daae84cc81a43d36b4aa8
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sun
: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210326 (experimental) [master revision
9d45e848d02:ca344bbd24f:6081d8994ed1a0aef6b7f5fb34f091faa3580416] (GCC)
[611] %
[611] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
[612] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[613] %
[613] % wc O1.s O3.s
17 38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #10 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
(By the way, finding this bug is quite hard. Could "address_of" be changed to
"to_address" , in the bug description? I think that's the intended meaning.
And, "to_pointer", mentioned a few times,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654
--- Comment #3 from Will Cohen ---
Created attachment 50480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50480=edit
Default assembly code generated by compiler
Default Assembly generated by compiler to compare to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Compiling with -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard defines:
TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT 1
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT 0
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_ABI 1
TARGET_VFP_SINGLE 1
so indeed what you propose does the trick.
(Sorry I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99792
Bug ID: 99792
Summary: MVE: Assemble failure with "branch out of range" at
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654
--- Comment #2 from Will Cohen ---
Created attachment 50479
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50479=edit
assembly file compiled with -gno-as-locview-support
Resulting assembly language file generated by:
gcc -O3 -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #15)
> Do you mean Power7 for the plain old VSX? I verified the pr98914.c on
> Power7, it exactly ICEs on "gcc_assert (CONST_INT_P (elt_rtx));" for both
> m64 and m32. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
--- Comment #7 from Nikita Kniazev ---
The fix silenced the true warning (though it was saying 'may') in these:
template struct X {};
template X foo();
int x = sizeof(foo());
template struct X {};
template
struct foo { using t = X; };
foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99791
Bug ID: 99791
Summary: -Wno-system-headers hides enum range Warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We don't want the assembly file. If you want to investigate what Rust does, you
are free to do that. But stop asking us to do that for you. There is no GCC bug
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #9 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Bugzilla is for reporting bugs, not for general programming advices.
>
> There is no bug here, the C++ standard for 64-bit architectures with its
> requirements on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bugzilla is for reporting bugs, not for general programming advices.
There is no bug here, the C++ standard for 64-bit architectures with its
requirements on std::string_view etc. effectively mandates that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99790
Bug ID: 99790
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/PsMrafh9c
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Users of your library on Window will be affected by the ABI on Windows.
> That's not a libstdc++ problem.
>
> Nobody said that std::span and std::string_view are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #15 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> You still have:
> if (VECTOR_MEM_VSX_P (mode))
> {
> if (!CONST_INT_P (elt_rtx))
> {
> if ((TARGET_P9_VECTOR &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> And what can libstdc++ do about that?
> Just use a different OS with better ABIs...
I use a lot of different systems. FreeBSD, MSDOS, Linux, Windows, etc. Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> And what can libstdc++ do about that?
> Just use a different OS with better ABIs...
Well, I tested that with Rust on windows, the parameters are passed by
registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50477
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50477=edit
demo assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50476=edit
demo source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96013
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Sometime the test ICE with
f951: internal compiler error: gfc_code2string(): Bad code
which cannot be fixed by the patch in comment 6.
A sanitized version with the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99789
Bug ID: 99789
Summary: std::span or std::string_view are not zero-overhead on
MS abi
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a testcase with SVE intrinsics that ICEs in the same way at -Os:
$ cat test.cc
#include
char a;
void c(unsigned &, const unsigned &);
void d(char, bool, short, int, int, char e, int, short f,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-26
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #3)
> I tried changing TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB in arm.h to:
> #define TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB (arm_float_abi != ARM_FLOAT_ABI_SOFT\
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99785
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk (with release checking) at -O2 the situation is not different from -O1
or the GCC 10 branch (so it's not 4 hours), the profile looks the same as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99719
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #7)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > > However, it looks like swapping to ms_abi from sysv_abi will cleanup SIMD
> > > registers. Is that correct?
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99719
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > However, it looks like swapping to ms_abi from sysv_abi will cleanup SIMD
> > registers. Is that correct?
>
> Fiddling with the ABI is highly discouraged in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99777
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, one thing is that tree-affine.c during store motion alias analysis feeds
very questionable expressions to the folder, in particular it attempts to fold
MULT_EXPR of (sizetype) (vector(4) short int *)
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210326 (experimental) [master revision
9d45e848d02:ca344bbd24f:6081d8994ed1a0aef6b7f5fb34f091faa3580416] (GCC)
[607] %
[607] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
[608] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[609] %
[609] % wc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
This fixes the ICE:
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md b/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md
index 48ee659..86563d9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md
@@ -103,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99785
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Btw, GCC 10 branch tip with -O1:
>
> ipa inlining heuristics: 962.91 ( 85%) 0.39 ( 4%) 971.66 (
> 84%) 1103801 kB ( 10%)
> alias stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
verify_curr_properties fails because is targetclone pass requires:
const pass_data pass_data_target_clone =
{
SIMPLE_IPA_PASS, /* type */
"targetclone",/* name */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94212
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, qianjh at cn dot fujitsu.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94212
>
> Qian Jianhua changed:
>
>What|Removed
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
