https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95859
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Schlüter ---
I'm sorry to say that the problem is NOT fixed on the trunk. With "ARM64 gcc
trunk" on the compiler explorer, we get the below. OTOH 9.3 produces perfect
code. Compiler explorer link:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
--- Comment #2 from Erik Schnetter ---
I did not describe the scale of the issue. There are more than just a few
inefficient or unnecessary operations:
The loop kernel (a single basic block) extends from address 0x1240 to 0xbf27 in
the attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
--- Comment #1 from Erik Schnetter ---
Created attachment 50508
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50508=edit
Compressed disassembled object file
"g++ (Spack GCC) 11.0.1 20210404 (experimental)" (fresh checkout) on
MacOS 11.2.3 with a x86-64 Skylake CPU.
I am manually SIMD-vectorizing a loop kernel using AVX2 intrinsics. The
generated code is correct, but has obvious inefficiencies. I find these issues:
1. There are spills (?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
Bug ID: 99911
Summary: C++20 adl issue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Answering my own question:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Types.html
> [...]
Nothing here for a month+. Any chance of this getting progress in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99910
Bug ID: 99910
Summary: [11 Regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2_b.C ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96573
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
This test fails on aarch64-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr96573.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_bswap"
f();
}
gcc rejects this code with:
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20210404/include/c++/11.0.1/concepts:102:13:
required for the satisfaction of 'integral, >]>' [with auto [requires
std::integral<, >] = auto [requires std::integral<,
>]]
/opt/compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99066
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] g++|[9/10 Regression] g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90664
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 regression]|[9/10 regression] noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99201
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99904
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
Bug ID: 99908
Summary: Arm optimisation generates a `not` instruction instead
of switching arguments of bsl
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99907
Bug ID: 99907
Summary: (On MS Windows) Multiple definition errors with
included in two translation units
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99900
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Schleizer ---
Can you or anyone guestimate / speculate how big a bounty in USD value would be
required to get this ticket implemented in gcc as well as getting a patch
merged at VirtualBox starting to use this?
-7980-20210403205900-gc3d3bb0f03d-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.1 20210404 (experimental) (GCC)
900-gc3d3bb0f03d-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.1 20210404 (experimental) (GCC)
Probably present since -mgeneral-regs-only introduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99903
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Izbyshev ---
> Is there a way to bind GCC to a specific core and test again?
Yes, `repro.py` can be run via `start /affinity MASK`. I've started two
experiments, with one- and two-processor masks. They haven't crashed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99904
Bug ID: 99904
Summary: ICE: in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.c:13056
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|i686-w64-mingw32|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99903
Bug ID: 99903
Summary: 32-bit x86 frontends randomly crash while reporting
timing on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
27 matches
Mail list logo
