https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a90f558bbb87c0b5d2b1e07d55bd585b2285cf3d
commit r14-2114-ga90f558bbb87c0b5d2b1e07d55bd585b2285cf3d
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e89759fdfc80db223bd852aba937acb2d7c2cd80
commit r12-1265-ge89759fdfc80db223bd852aba937acb2d7c2cd80
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jun 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #19 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a90b311f22956addaf4f5f9bdb3592afd45083f
commit r12-1253-g9a90b311f22956addaf4f5f9bdb3592afd45083f
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16465ceb06cc1f65cfca3c0eb2c1ee27ab03bdfd
commit r12-1252-g16465ceb06cc1f65cfca3c0eb2c1ee27ab03bdfd
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > > Last touched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > Last touched in PR99563.
> > > I guess for the explicit user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > Last touched in PR99563.
> > I guess for the explicit user vzeroupper we need to add the clobbers/sets
> > earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #13 from Marcin Ślusarz ---
FTR, to reproduce this problem with gcc 9 and 10 I had to either replace -mavx
with -march=native or add -mtune=native. The problem starts reproducing with
-march=haswell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Last touched in PR99563.
> I guess for the explicit user vzeroupper we need to add the clobbers/sets
> earlier than in the vzeroupper pass, but ideally in a way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Indeed as far as I understand an unspec volatile isn't sth clobbering
> > registers (not even memory?!). The insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Indeed as far as I understand an unspec volatile isn't sth clobbering
> registers (not even memory?!). The insn is missing inputs/outputs
> (we might be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> Confirmed, let me fix this.
Please note that the current definition of vzeroupper does not model effects of
the instruction at all. The current definition is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Add 9.3 to the know to fail list:
$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Walton ---
I think we are seeing this bug in the field. We are catching lots of failed
self tests as we test on multiple platforms, including Ubuntu 14 ERS and Ubuntu
16 LTS.
The problem makes GCC 4.8.4 through 7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed as far as I understand an unspec volatile isn't sth clobbering
registers (not even memory?!). The insn is missing inputs/outputs
(we might be able to model that lowparts are preserved).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Actually, what CSE1 does might be fine, and it is LRA that should have noticed
that the register it assigned was clobbered, so it should have spilled (or
better rematerialized). Assuming the i386 backend does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #1 from Marcin Ślusarz ---
Heh, there are really stupid bugs in both files. Thankfully they don't change
the outcome.
Updated code:
$ cat main.c
#include
#include
void test(char *dest);
int main()
{
char buf[64];
21 matches
Mail list logo
