[Bug tree-optimization/98304] Failure to optimize bitwise arithmetic pattern

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98304 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution|---

[Bug driver/86030] specs file processing does not create response files for input directories

2023-09-16 Thread john.soo+gcc-bugzilla at arista dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030 --- Comment #18 from John Soo --- And actually the proposed patch is not conservative enough, because the size of the strings in argv/env also matter.

[Bug tree-optimization/106379] DCE depends on order

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106379 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||106380, 106505, 106381 Depends

[Bug tree-optimization/106505] DCE depends on whether if or else is used

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106505 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-09-17

[Bug tree-optimization/109546] [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r13-3596-ge7310e24b1c0ca

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109546 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|13.3

[Bug analyzer/110529] Analyzer fails to handle computed goto

2023-09-16 Thread dale.mengli.ming at proton dot me via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110529 --- Comment #6 from mengli ming --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5) > Should be fixed on trunk for gcc 14 by the above commit. Thanks a lot for your hard work!

[Bug target/111438] Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c)

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111438 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Also see https://github.com/containerd/containerd/discussions/5525#discussioncomment-2685649

[Bug target/111438] Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c)

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111438 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Gamal Akabani from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > >GCC: 13.2.0, GCC, gfortran was installed using homebrew > > > but the code sometimes crashes in my new Mac

[Bug target/111438] Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c)

2023-09-16 Thread gamal.akabani at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111438 --- Comment #2 from Gamal Akabani --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > >GCC: 13.2.0, GCC, gfortran was installed using homebrew > > but the code sometimes crashes in my new Mac Studio M2 Pro. > > GCC upstream does not have support

[Bug target/111438] Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c)

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111438 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|fortran

[Bug fortran/111438] New: Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c)

2023-09-16 Thread gamal.akabani at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111438 Bug ID: 111438 Summary: Missing libSystem.B.dylib during execution - Mac OS 13.5.2 (22G91), XCODE: Version 14.3.1 (14E300c) Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status:

[Bug middle-end/108847] [11/12/13/14 Regression] unnecessary bitwise AND on boolean types and shifting of the "sign" bit

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug tree-optimization/109960] [11/12/13/14 Regression] missing combining of `(a&1) != 0 || (a&2)!=0` into `(a&3)!=0`

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109960 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55915 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55915=edit match pattern for the non-ifcombine case sometimes we need to handle this outside of ifcombine due to phiopt or

[Bug middle-end/108370] gcc doesn't merge bitwise-AND if an explicit comparison against 0 is given

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108370 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55914 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55914=edit Patch Combined with the patch for PR 109960. We are able to optimize this correctly: _5 = bio_4(D)->bi_flags; _8

[Bug middle-end/108370] gcc doesn't merge bitwise-AND if an explicit comparison against 0 is given

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108370 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > _10 = _9 >> 1; > _11 = (bool) _10; > if (_11 != 0) > > > Should just be optimized to: > _t = _9 & 1 > if (_t != 0) > > Let me add that to match. We do

[Bug middle-end/111243] The -Og option inlines functions, making for a poor debugging experience.

2023-09-16 Thread amohr at amohr dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243 --- Comment #15 from Alex Mohr --- Thank you Richard B, Richard G, Xi, Jonathan, Jakub, and Eric for all the great info. Much appreciated. With more experience using '-Og -fno-inline' I've found that sometimes inspecting local variables

[Bug middle-end/108370] gcc doesn't merge bitwise-AND if an explicit comparison against 0 is given

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108370 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- _10 = _9 >> 1; _11 = (bool) _10; if (_11 != 0) Should just be optimized to: _t = _9 & 1 if (_t != 0) Let me add that to match.

[Bug tree-optimization/109960] [11/12/13/14 Regression] missing combining of `(a&1) != 0 || (a&2)!=0` into `(a&3)!=0`

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109960 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55913 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55913=edit part of the ifcombine fixes It does not catch: _10 = _5 >> 1; _11 = (_Bool) _10; if (_11 != 0) Though. I will

[Bug middle-end/108370] gcc doesn't merge bitwise-AND if an explicit comparison against 0 is given

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108370 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/109960] [11/12/13/14 Regression] missing combining of `(a&1) != 0 || (a&2)!=0` into `(a&3)!=0`

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109960 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55912 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55912=edit Patch which I am testing

[Bug c++/111436] Wrong code when bit-casting struct through pointer

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/111437] Some always inline functions are incorrectly warn of as "might not be inlinable"

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111437 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-09-16 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Note my testcase needs exceptions turned on ...

[Bug c/111437] New: Some always inline functions are incorrectly warn of as "might not be inlinable"

2023-09-16 Thread gb2985 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111437 Bug ID: 111437 Summary: Some always inline functions are incorrectly warn of as "might not be inlinable" Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is a better testcase: ``` void find_slot_with_hash(const int &,int, int); void put(const int , const int ) { find_slot_with_hash(k, 0, 1); __builtin_unreachable(); } unsigned len(); int

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Meanwhile cvise extracted this test: // $ cat tree-ssa-loop-niter.cc.cc int discover_iteration_bound_by_body_walk_queue_index, m_vec; int *address(); unsigned length(); int deref(unsigned ix) { int

[Bug c++/111436] New: Wrong code when bit-casting struct through pointer

2023-09-16 Thread josopait at goopax dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111436 Bug ID: 111436 Summary: Wrong code when bit-casting struct through pointer Product: gcc Version: 12.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Changing the match pattern for conversions to non-recusive fixes the issue. That is: /* A conversion from an zero_one_valued_p is still a [0,1]. This is useful when the range of a variable is not known

[Bug tree-optimization/52345] Missed optimization dealing with bools

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52345 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > // (a | zero_one) != 0 -> a!=0 | zero_one > > (simplify > (ne (bit_ior:c @1 zero_one_value_p@2) integer_zerop@3) > (bit_ior (convert @1) (ne @2 @3))) > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So Basically you can't have a recusive match because of the way VN works ... I should have figured that out when I was adding bitwise_inverted_equal_p .

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111435 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/111435] New: [14 Regression] gimple_zero_one_valued_p() infinite recursion

2023-09-16 Thread slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
.cc -dumpbase-ext .cc -m32 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -O2 -version -o /run/user/1000/ccgZ63HD.s GNU C++17 (GCC) version 14.0.0 20230916 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) compiled by GNU C version 14.0.0 20230916 (experimental), GMP version 6.3.0, MPFR version 4.2.1, MPC version 1.3.1,

[Bug tree-optimization/52345] Missed optimization dealing with bools

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52345 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/110992] [13/14 Regression] missed VRP optimization due to transformation of `a & -zero_one_valued_p` into `a * zero_one_valued_p`

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110992 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug tree-optimization/111431] a & (a == 0) is not optimized to 0

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111431 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug driver/86030] specs file processing does not create response files for input directories

2023-09-16 Thread john.soo+gcc-bugzilla at arista dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030 --- Comment #17 from John Soo --- Created attachment 55910 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55910=edit libiberty, Unix: pass argv over ARG_MAX through an @file This does not handle environ being too large, but it is an

[Bug ada/111434] New: Infinite loop with limited withs?

2023-09-16 Thread p.p11 at orange dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111434 Bug ID: 111434 Summary: Infinite loop with limited withs? Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada

[Bug ada/111433] New: Erroneous message "error: null exclusion for "O" does not match"

2023-09-16 Thread p.p11 at orange dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111433 Bug ID: 111433 Summary: Erroneous message "error: null exclusion for "O" does not match" Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/111391] RISC-V Vector: ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for during reload pass

2023-09-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111391 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Pan Li : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86451305d8b2a25e7c6ea6c2f1ee69c419cba3ef commit r14-4077-g86451305d8b2a25e7c6ea6c2f1ee69c419cba3ef Author: Juzhe-Zhong Date: Thu Sep

[Bug target/111425] ia64: ICE in net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c:1621:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

2023-09-16 Thread frank.scheiner at web dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111425 --- Comment #4 from Frank Scheiner --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) Hi Richard, in case you wanted me to test this reduced test case, I ran it through as if it was the file in question. I needed to remove

[Bug tree-optimization/110941] [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r14-2379-gc496d15954c

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110941 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC 13: Global Exported: _6 = [irange] unsigned int [0, 24] NONZERO 0x1e trunk: Global Exported: _6 = [irange] unsigned int [0, 24][+INF, +INF] MASK 0x1c VALUE 0x0 And then: Folding predicate _6 > 24 to

[Bug tree-optimization/95408] Failure to optimize bitwise and with negated conditional using the same operand to conditional with decremented operand

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95408 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug tree-optimization/110502] [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -Os since r14-1656-g55fcaa9a8bd

2023-09-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110502 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note LIM2 has way different IR selection which is kinda interesting since there are no stores that happened in the bbs that were removed: if (_2 != 0) goto ; [75.00%] else goto ; [25.00%]