[Bug middle-end/104721] currently_expanding_gimple_stmt isn't cleared properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #2) > Is there a testcase where you noticed this, or was it just reading code? I am working on a patch to check currently_expanding_gimple_stmt != NULL in i386 backend. At

[Bug middle-end/104721] currently_expanding_gimple_stmt isn't cleared properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/104721] currently_expanding_gimple_stmt isn't cleared properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52528 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52528=edit A patch I am testing this.

[Bug middle-end/104721] New: currently_expanding_gimple_stmt isn't cleared properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721 Bug ID: 104721 Summary: currently_expanding_gimple_stmt isn't cleared properly Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/104704] [12 Regression] ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx doesn't work with explicit XMM7/XMM15/XMM31 usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > ix86_expand_vector_move shouldn't use ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx. > > Is it problematic for TARGET_GEN_MEMSET_SCRATCH_RTX? It

[Bug target/104610] memcmp () == 0 can be optimized better for avx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > > Created attachment 52495 [details] > > untested patch. > > I see these regressions with -m32: > > FAIL:

[Bug target/104610] memcmp () == 0 can be optimized better for avx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > Created attachment 52495 [details] > untested patch. I see these regressions with -m32: FAIL: gcc.dg/lower-subreg-1.c scan-rtl-dump subreg1 "Splitting reg" FAIL:

[Bug target/104704] [12 Regression] ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx doesn't work with explicit XMM7/XMM15/XMM31 usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-27 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/104610] memcmp () == 0 can be optimized better for avx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||104704 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In

[Bug target/104704] New: [12 Regression] ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx doesn't work explicit XMM7/XMM15/XMM31 usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704 Bug ID: 104704 Summary: [12 Regression] ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx doesn't work explicit XMM7/XMM15/XMM31 usage Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/101908] [12 regression] cray regression with -O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize compared to -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to cuilili from comment #24) > (In reply to cuilili from comment #23) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17) > > > I do wonder though how CLX is fine with such access pattern ;) (did you >

[Bug target/104610] memcmp () == 0 can be optimized better for avx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- Don't worry about vzeroupper. It's ok to have vzeroupper.

[Bug target/104610] memcmp () == 0 can be optimized better for avx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-23 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/101456] Unnecessary vzeroupper when upper bits of YMM registers already zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101456 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Resolution|FIXED

[Bug testsuite/104481] gcc.target/i386/pr35513-8.c and g++.target/i386/pr35513-[12].C testsuire failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104481 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/104481] gcc.target/i386/pr35513-8.c and g++.target/i386/pr35513-[12].C testsuire failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104481 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Target Milestone|---

[Bug testsuite/104481] gcc.target/i386/pr35513-8.c and g++.target/i386/pr35513-[12].C testsuire failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104481 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0) > rab0b5fbfe90168d2e470aefb19e0cf31526290bc caused: > > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr35513-8.c scan-assembler .long[ \\t]+0xb0008000 > UNRESOLVED:

[Bug target/104441] [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104441 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/104441] [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104441 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52376 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52376=edit A patch I am testing this.

[Bug target/104441] [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104441 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- ix86_check_avx_upper_register doesn't check (vec_select:V2DI (reg/v:V4DI 23 xmm3 [orig:91 ymm ] [91]) (parallel [ (const_int 2 [0x2]) (const_int 3 [0x3]) ]))

[Bug target/104441] [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104441 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/104441] New: [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104441 Bug ID: 104441 Summary: [12 Regression] vzeroupper is placed at the wrong place Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/104413] _mm_set1_epi8 isn't optimized for SSE2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/104413] New: _mm_set1_epi8 isn't optimized for SSE2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413 Bug ID: 104413 Summary: _mm_set1_epi8 isn't optimized for SSE2 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu --- The GCC 11 backport is posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589527.html

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #38 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #37) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36) > > HJ, does it make sense to backport these to branches since AFAIU they also > > address possible security issues? > >

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36) > HJ, does it make sense to backport these to branches since AFAIU they also > address possible security issues? Yes, Linux kernel needs it. I will work on it.

[Bug tree-optimization/104280] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug rtl-optimization/102178] [12 Regression] SPECFP 2006 470.lbm regressions on AMD Zen CPUs after r12-897-gde56f95afaaa22

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu --- Is

[Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---

[Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- nptl/pthread_create.c has do pd->nextevent = __nptl_last_event; while (atomic_compare_and_exchange_bool_acq (&__nptl_last_event,

[Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c in glibc has: do { newval = oldval & PTHREAD_MUTEX_PRIO_CEILING_MASK; } while (!atomic_compare_exchange_weak_release (>__data.__lock,

[Bug target/103065] [meta] atomic operations aren't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103065 Bug 103065 depends on bug 103069, which changed state. Bug 103069 Summary: cmpxchg isn't optimized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libgcc/27576] The .eh_frame section in crtend.o has wrong aligment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27576 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1) > Was there a problem with the obvious patch or it's just that nobody did it? A patch is posted at

[Bug target/104188] [11/12 Regression] gcc omitting AVX-512 broadcast instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104188 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/104188] [11/12 Regression] gcc omitting AVX-512 broadcast instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104188 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- The v2 patch is posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589125.html

[Bug target/104188] [11/12 Regression] gcc omitting AVX-512 broadcast instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104188 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- A

[Bug target/104188] [11/12 Regression] gcc omitting AVX-512 broadcast instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104188 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52269 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52269=edit A patch This this.

[Bug target/104188] [11/12 Regression] gcc omitting AVX-512 broadcast instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104188 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Since vbroadcastf32x4 != vbroadcastss, we can't replace vbroadcastf32x4 with {1to16} broadcast.

[Bug bootstrap/104170] [12 Regression] Failed to bootstrap by r12-6807

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104170 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/104170] [12 Regression] Failed to bootstrap by r12-6807

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104170 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- A

[Bug bootstrap/104170] [12 Regression] Failed to bootstrap by r12-6807

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104170 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/104170] New: [12 Regression] Failed to bootstrap by r12-6807

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104170 Bug ID: 104170 Summary: [12 Regression] Failed to bootstrap by r12-6807 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug go/104149] [12 Regression] trunk 20220120 ftbfs in gotools on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104149 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In

[Bug go/104149] [12 Regression] trunk 20220120 ftbfs in gotools on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104149 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52250 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52250=edit A patch to restore x32 build

[Bug go/104149] [12 Regression] trunk 20220120 ftbfs in gotools on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104149 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/102911] AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- Also fixed for GCC 11.3, 10.4 and 9.5.

[Bug ada/103538] [12 Regression] trunk 20211203 fails to build gnat on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103538 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|12.0

[Bug testsuite/104109] [12 Regression] ERROR: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-17.C : error executing dg-final: can't read "script": no such variable by r12-6629

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104109 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|[12 Regression]

[Bug testsuite/104109] New: [12 Regression] ERROR: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-17.C : error executing dg-final: can't read "script": no such variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104109 Bug ID: 104109 Summary: [12 Regression] ERROR: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-17.C : error executing dg-final: can't read "script": no such variable Product: gcc Version:

[Bug ada/103538] [12 Regression] trunk 20211203 fails to build gnat on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103538 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW

[Bug ada/103538] [12 Regression] trunk 20211203 fails to build gnat on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103538 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 5 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5=edit A patch Try this.

[Bug ada/103538] [12 Regression] trunk 20211203 fails to build gnat on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103538 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- gcc-interface/Makefile.in has ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out x86_64, $(target_cpu))),) ifeq ($(strip $(MULTISUBDIR)),/32) target_cpu:=i686 else ifeq ($(strip $(MULTISUBDIR)),/x32) target_cpu:=x32

[Bug ada/103538] [12 Regression] trunk 20211203 fails to build gnat on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103538 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52220 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52220=edit A patch to update x32 suport

[Bug libgcc/27576] The .eh_frame section in crtend.o has wrong aligment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27576 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/104014] [12 Regression] r12-6538 breaks bootstrap with --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Is it the same as PR104001? Maybe. I don't know if the fix is complete.

[Bug target/104014] [12 Regression] r12-6538 breaks bootstrap with --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-01-13 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/104014] [12 Regression] r12-6538 breaks bootstrap with --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug target/104014] New: [12 Regression] r12-6538 breaks bootstrap with --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014 Bug ID: 104014 Summary: [12 Regression] r12-6538 breaks bootstrap with --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/103978] AddressSanitizer CHECK failed with threads and thread canceling with glibc 2.28+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103978 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/103925] Missing int3 in ix86_output_indirect_function_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103925 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52134 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52134=edit A patch to rename -harden-sls=indirect-branch to -harden-sls=indirect-jmp

[Bug target/103925] Missing int3 in ix86_output_indirect_function_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103925 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In

[Bug target/103925] New: Missing int3 in ix86_output_indirect_function_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103925 Bug ID: 103925 Summary: Missing int3 in ix86_output_indirect_function_return Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/57245] Floating-point constant truncation ignores -frounding-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245 Bug 57245 depends on bug 103735, which changed state. Bug 103735 Summary: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures by r12-4764 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/103735] [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures by r12-4764

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/86693] inefficient atomic_fetch_xor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4) > Change testcase a little bit, gcc now can generate lock btc > > > void func1(); > > void func(unsigned long *counter) > { > if (__atomic_fetch_xor(counter, 1,

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- The v3 patch is posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587364.html

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Before (insn 8 5 70 2 (set (reg:SI 1 dx [92]) (const_int 714200473 [0x2a91d599])) "/export/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-gcc-test/gcc/ada/sem_type.adb":2563:7 70 {*movsi_internal} (expr_list:REG_EQUIV

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > Created attachment 52055 [details] > Good and bad asm > > --- good.s2021-12-24 11:24:26.531365375 -0800 > +++ bad.s 2021-12-24 11:24:30.769344666 -0800 > @@ -10,7

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52055 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52055=edit Good and bad asm --- good.s 2021-12-24 11:24:26.531365375 -0800 +++ bad.s 2021-12-24 11:24:30.769344666 -0800

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- sem_type.adb is miscompiled.

[Bug target/103785] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap ICEs on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 from

[Bug bootstrap/103820] [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by r12-6077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md index 284b9507466..9d6786c5c2e 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md @@ -8588,7 +8588,8 @@ (define_peephole2

[Bug bootstrap/103820] [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by r12-6077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #3) > Thanks for investigating this HJ (I'm having difficulty configuring my You can bootstrap 32bit GCC on Linux/x86-64 if 32-bit libraries are available. > system to

[Bug bootstrap/103820] [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by r12-6077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug bootstrap/103820] New: [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by r12-6077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820 Bug ID: 103820 Summary: [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by r12-6077 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- *** Bug 42444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/42444] "-march=i386 -march=native -mfpmath=sse" problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42444 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/103194] [12 Regression] ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and with __sync_fetch_and_and since r12-5102-gfb161782545224f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug rtl-optimization/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9) > glibc cannot easily work around such unexpected relocations for static or > hidden variables. Static PIE currently requires PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN, and > with the GCC

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com,

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- LRA

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Good __tunables_init code: .L35: movq$-88, %rax leaqtunable_list(%rip), %rbx movq%r8, %r12 subq%rbx, %rax movq%rax, %r15 Bad __tunables_init

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52028 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52028=edit A testcase There are dl-tunables.i good.s bad.s. Compiler options are -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -g -Wall

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Good: There are 16 section headers, starting at offset 0x21d8: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddress OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- elf/dl-tunables.c is miscompiled by -fpie.

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/103762] New: [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 Bug ID: 103762 Summary: [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/102080] [12 Regression] avx512vl related ICE, on firefox-92 gcc ICEs: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:7946 by r12-2679

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102080 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/103735] [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures by r12-4764

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] Extra glibc |[12 Regression] Extra glibc

[Bug middle-end/103735] [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/103735] New: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 Bug ID: 103735 Summary: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >