[Bug tree-optimization/106679] [13 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/cmpsf-1.c fails after r13-2098-g5adfb6540db95d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106679 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- Huh. I wonder why this didn't show up in my regression tests. Are these tests not run by default? Either way, I'll take a look. On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 23:29 pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <

[Bug tree-optimization/103188] [12 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103188 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,

[Bug tree-optimization/102906] [12 regression] gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c fails since r12-4526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102906 --- Comment #18 from Defunct account. Do not use. --- > Yes. I guess it would be nice to have a CTOR or so for the case > where the path is really a single edge like in this case. Good idea. Will do.

[Bug middle-end/102906] [12 regression] gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c fails since r12-4526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102906 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857 --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez --- Thank you for your help on this (and the myriad of other PRs ;-)). I'll submit upstream. On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 11:06 AM pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > >

[Bug tree-optimization/102794] [12 Regression] missing vrp in evrp dealing with casts and ands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- I haven't looked at this, but there's a pending patch with more restrictions for loop threading in the presence of loops. Does this help?

[Bug tree-optimization/102703] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r12-2591-g2e96b5f14e402569

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703 --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 11:37 pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703 > > --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- > Because: > if

[Bug tree-optimization/102646] large performance changes between 1932e1169a236849f5e7f1cd386da100d9af470f and 9cfb95f9b92326e86e99b50350ebf04fa9cd2477 (probably jump threading)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102646 --- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez --- Most if not all the performance changes I've seen so far have been, not due to the jump threader changes, but to the restrictions we've put into place for jump threadable paths. Before, we used to thread

[Bug tree-optimization/102622] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512 and icelake-server by r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez --- Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.

[Bug other/102605] address instruction from -fdump-tree-*-gimple doesn't work with -fgimple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605 --- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:14 AM rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > Btw, please report cases where -gimple doesn't produce valid GIMPLE FE > inputs (OK, there are known cases with mangled symbol names when

[Bug other/102605] address instruction from -fdump-tree-*-gimple doesn't work with -fgimple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605 --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez --- > > BTW, the __MEM_REF output from the dumps does not work in -fgimple either. > > More errors. > > Can you share an example? This is from gcc.c-torture/execute/961125-1.c compiled with -fgimple: char *

[Bug tree-optimization/102546] [12 Regregression] Missed Dead Code Elimination regression (trunk vs 11.2.0) at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102546 --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez --- Absolutely, but I didn't want to pollute the patch for this PR. Consider the patch to do so pre-approved :-). On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 00:20 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >

[Bug tree-optimization/102542] [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since r12-3876-g4a960d548b7d7d94

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102542 --- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:46 PM rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Could I inconvenience you to tweak this function with your insight? It's a > > tiny function, and it seems you're much more qualified

[Bug middle-end/102519] [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 --- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez --- However, if you care to test a patch, I'd be happy to review it. On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:49 AM aldot at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 > > Bernhard

[Bug middle-end/102519] [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez --- Doesn't make a difference. If the blocks are stale, they need to be reconstructed anyhow. It's preexisting behavior in VRP anyhow. I heard you the first time ;-). On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:49 AM aldot

[Bug bootstrap/102527] [12 regression] out of memory compiling insn-emit.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102527 --- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez --- This looks mighty suspicious ;-) diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c index 69a3ab0ea9d..c24c67f8874 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c @@ -4408,6 +4408,7 @@

[Bug middle-end/102519] [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 --- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:46 PM dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 > > --- Comment #15 from David Edelsohn --- > I annotated execute_vrp_threader() to

[Bug middle-end/101671] pr83510 fails with -Os because threader confuses -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101671 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- Yeah, that would be great. Thanks! On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101671 > > Martin Sebor changed: > >What

[Bug tree-optimization/100787] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure caused by r12-1077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100787 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps if EVRP is folding debug stmts it could first fold non-debug stmts (and remember if there were any debug stmts) and only fold debug stmts afterwards, either just by using caches and not adding

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez --- On 5/26/21 3:23 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Wed, 26 May 2021, amacleod at redhat

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:34 AM rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > It's probably too strict for multiple_of_p which is fine with > overflows that preserve modulo behavior. Could you provide an example?

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #17 from Richard Biener --- > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from

[Bug tree-optimization/97721] [11 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:361

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97721 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez --- > > as well as here: > > > > if (TREE_CODE (val1) == INTEGER_CST && TREE_CODE (val2) == INTEGER_CST) > > { > > /* We cannot compare overflowed values. */ > > if (TREE_OVERFLOW

[Bug tree-optimization/97609] [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl common' structure, have 'component_ref' in tree_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2708

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97609 --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez --- Yes. On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 09:47 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97609 > > Martin Liška changed: > >What

[Bug tree-optimization/96818] [11 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 at -O since r11-2883

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818 --- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez --- Ah...it can be closed. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 17:58 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818 > > --- Comment #10 from Martin