[Bug c/69616] New: optimization of 8 movb

2016-02-02 Thread izaberina at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Bug ID: 69616 Summary: optimization of 8 movb Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unas

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

2016-02-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* S

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

2016-02-02 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 --- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6) > IMO, we should revert r215450, and fix a couple of cases using narrowing > conversions with gen_lowpart that were introduced after r215450. Please g

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #2 from

[Bug target/69532] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/{vect-,}fmaxmin.c execution test on armv7

2016-02-02 Thread david.sherwood at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532 --- Comment #4 from david.sherwood at arm dot com --- (In reply to vries from comment #3) > Also for the non-vect version: > ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c execution test > ... Hi, if you are not already fixing this, I can take a look if yo

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/69617] New: PowerPC/e6500: Atomic byte/halfword operations not properly supported

2016-02-02 Thread sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
rx 3,0,9 add 5,3,6 andc 10,3,7 and 5,5,7 or 10,10,5 stwcx. 10,0,9 bne- 0,.L6 isync srw 3,3,8 rlwinm 3,3,0,0x blr .size inc_ushort, .-inc_ushort .ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20160202 (experimental)

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/69532] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/{vect-,}fmaxmin.c execution test on armv7

2016-02-02 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532 --- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to david.sherwood from comment #4) > (In reply to vries from comment #3) > > Also for the non-vect version: > > ... > > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c execution test > > ... > > Hi, if yo

[Bug tree-optimization/67921] [6 Regression] "internal compiler error: in build_polynomial_chrec, at tree-chrec.h:147" when using -fsanitize=undefined

2016-02-02 Thread amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug rtl-optimization/69609] [6 Regression] block reordering consumes an inordinate amount of time, REE consumes much memory

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69609 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug libgomp/69597] execution failure for libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c with -flto

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69597 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- OACC uses IPA PTA unconditionally, right?

[Bug target/69618] New: PowerPC/e6500: Atomic fence operations not properly supported

2016-02-02 Thread sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
.type acquire, @function acquire: lwsync blr .size acquire, .-acquire .ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20160202 (experimental) See also e6500 Core Reference Manual, 5.5.5.2.1 (Simplified memory barrier recommendations) and EREF: A Programmer’s Reference M

[Bug libgomp/69597] execution failure for libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c with -flto

2016-02-02 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69597 --- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > OACC uses IPA PTA unconditionally, right? It uses it by default. I think -fno-ipa-pta should work as expected.

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So before VRP2 we have : load_dst_16 = b; # RANGE [2, 65535] NONZERO 65535 _12 = (int) load_dst_16; # RANGE [0, 255] _9 = (unsigned char) load_dst_16; e = _9; # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255

[Bug middle-end/68542] [6 Regression] 10% 481.wrf performance regression

2016-02-02 Thread ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542 --- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Tue Feb 2 09:46:26 2016 New Revision: 233068 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233068&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ 2016-02-02 Yuri Rumyantsev PR middle-end/68542

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Testing Index: gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c === *** gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c(revision 233067) --- gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c(working copy) *

[Bug tree-optimization/69619] New: [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 Bug ID: 69619 Summary: [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compile-time-h

[Bug tree-optimization/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com T

[Bug testsuite/69620] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized fails for powerpc64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread tiago.brusamarello at datacom dot ind.br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69620 Bug ID: 69620 Summary: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized fails for powerpc64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c/69602] [6 Regression] over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs EWOULDBLOCK

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/69277] [6 Regression] ICE mangling a flexible array member

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

2016-02-02 Thread peter at cordes dot ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 --- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes --- @Richard and Jakub: That's just addressing the first part of my report, the problem with x <= (INT_MAX-1), right? You may have missed the second part of the problem, since I probably buried it under too muc

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

2016-02-02 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assigne

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I suppose even that is doable in the reassoc framework, or it could be done in match.pd just using the recorded value ranges, like richi has handled PR69595, or both.

[Bug target/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 --- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Just increasing the size of 'e' avoids undefined behaviour. The following doesn't give a warning and still shows the bug: int a, b, c, d; int e[100]; void fn1 () { int *f = &d; c = 6; for (

[Bug c++/69621] New: extern std::string used as reference template-argument does not have [abi:cxx11] tag applied

2016-02-02 Thread ed at catmur dot co.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69621 Bug ID: 69621 Summary: extern std::string used as reference template-argument does not have [abi:cxx11] tag applied Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

2016-02-02 Thread bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #8 from Bernd Schmidt --- Looks like it can be slightly reduced, removing not executed paths. template constexpr inline const T & min (const T &a, const T &b) { if (b < a) return b; return a; } template < typename T > const

[Bug target/69622] New: compiler reordering of non-temporal (write-combining) stores produces significant performance hit

2016-02-02 Thread peter at cordes dot ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69622 Bug ID: 69622 Summary: compiler reordering of non-temporal (write-combining) stores produces significant performance hit Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/68715] [6 Regression] ice: in harmful_stmt_in_region, at graphite-scop-detection.c:1043

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-01-07 00:00:00 |2016-2-2 CC

[Bug target/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread wdijkstr at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 --- Comment #2 from Wilco --- Changing to c = 3 generates code after a short time. The issue is recursive calls to expand_ccmp_expr during the 2 possible options tried to determine costs. That makes the algorithm exponential. A fix would be to e

[Bug c++/69623] New: CWG 1388; Invalid deduction of non-trailing template parameter pack

2016-02-02 Thread colu...@gmx-topmail.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69623 Bug ID: 69623 Summary: CWG 1388; Invalid deduction of non-trailing template parameter pack Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/69602] [6 Regression] over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs EWOULDBLOCK

2016-02-02 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Even if we look through macros, I'd actually think we should warn here. I think we should NOT look through macros. The purpose of the warning is to catch m

[Bug c/69602] [6 Regression] over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs EWOULDBLOCK

2016-02-02 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602 --- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Eric Blake from comment #0) > However, as shown by the sample code below, gcc 6.0's new warning is > over-ambitious, and is likely to _cause_ rather than cure user bugs, when > uninformed u

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.0 Summary|[5/6 Regression]

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.0 Summary|[5/6 Regression]

[Bug c/69602] [6 Regression] over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs EWOULDBLOCK

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) > (In reply to Eric Blake from comment #0) > > However, as shown by the sample code below, gcc 6.0's new warning is > > over-ambitious, and is likely to _caus

[Bug rtl-optimization/69307] [4.9/5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fselective-scheduling @ armv7a

2016-02-02 Thread abel at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69307 --- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev --- Created attachment 37551 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37551&action=edit proposed patch Here before reload we're trying to rename a hard register. At the very final point of choo

[Bug target/69622] compiler reordering of non-temporal (write-combining) stores produces significant performance hit

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69622 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67032] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN

2016-02-02 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ra | Status|NEW

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Bisection showed this started with r228302. But I'm not sure if that's the cause or just exposes a latent bug.

[Bug target/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread wdijkstr at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 --- Comment #3 from Wilco --- A simple workaround is to calculate cost1 early and only try the 2nd option if the cost is low (ie. it's not a huge expression that may evaluate into lots of ccmps). A slightly more advanced way would be to walk prep

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 --- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Note that -mtpcs-leaf-frame was deprecated in GCC 5 due to a number of bugs with it: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html There are a number of known issues with these options relating to the

[Bug c/69624] New: sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 Bug ID: 69624 Summary: sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/69613] [6 Regression] wrong code with -O and simple 128bit arithmetics and vectors @ aarch64

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #1 from Jiri Slaby --- Created attachment 37552 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37552&action=edit __sw_hweight32 assembly

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #2 from Jiri Slaby --- Created attachment 37553 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37553&action=edit __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc implementation This guys actually changes rdx.

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #3 from Jiri Slaby --- Preprocessed code: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/sklad/af_netlink.i This one results in the code from initial description. I.e. rdx is loaded before a call.

[Bug c++/69621] extern std::string used as reference template-argument does not have [abi:cxx11] tag applied

2016-02-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69621 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug libgomp/69625] New: deadlock in libgomp.c/doacross-1.c test

2016-02-02 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69625 Bug ID: 69625 Summary: deadlock in libgomp.c/doacross-1.c test Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp

[Bug libstdc++/69626] New: [6 Regression] std::strtoll no longer defined in c++98 mode

2016-02-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69626 Bug ID: 69626 Summary: [6 Regression] std::strtoll no longer defined in c++98 mode Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/69627] New: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point

2016-02-02 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69627 Bug ID: 69627 Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point Product: gcc

[Bug c++/69628] New: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)

2016-02-02 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69628 Bug ID: 69628 Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #5 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > What gcc options are you using on the preprocessed source to trigger this? By default this: gcc-6 -nostdinc -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -std=gnu89 -mno-sse -mn

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread dvyukov at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #6 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Also what gcc version? I've tried: gcc version 6.0.0 20160105 (experimental) (GCC) $ gcc /tmp/af_netlink.c -c -O2 -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1 --param asan-glo

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #7 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #6) > Also what gcc version? $ gcc-6 --version gcc-6 (SUSE Linux) 6.0.0 20160121 (experimental) [trunk revision 232670] > I've tried: > gcc version 6.0.0 20160105 (exper

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread dvyukov at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #8 from Dmitry Vyukov --- First of all, are you sure that r12 is not 0 before the call? Deference of 0xdc00 is how KASAN reacts on NULL deref, it does shadow check before the memory accesses. If original address is NULL,

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #9 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #8) > First of all, are you sure that r12 is not 0 before the call? Yes. > Deference of 0xdc00 is how KASAN reacts on NULL deref, it does > shadow check befo

[Bug c++/69628] [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in lex_charconst(cpp_token const*) (c-lex.c:1252)

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69628 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/69627] [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69627 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug libstdc++/69626] [6 Regression] std::strtoll etc. no longer defined in c++98 mode

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69626 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you are calling a function (__sw_hweight32) without letting gcc know you do that, are you sure that function call does not modify any registers other than "flags" and "rax"?

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

2016-02-02 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > If you are calling a function (__sw_hweight32) without letting gcc know you > do that, are you sure that function call does not modify any registers other > than "

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #12 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #11) > __sw_hweight32 changes only retval (rax) and parameter (rdi). ... and rdi is stored to and restored from stack.

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems hweight.c is compiled with -fcall-saved-rdi -fcall-saved-rsi -fcall-saved-rdx -fcall-saved-rcx -fcall-saved-r8 -fcall-saved-r9 -fcall-saved-r10 -fcall-saved-r11 but that of course expects that all the

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

2016-02-02 Thread bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread dvyukov at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #14 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Wait, I already disabled instrumentation of hweight.c for because of this: +# Kernel does not boot if we instrument this file as it uses custom calling +# convention (see CONFIG_ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS). +KCOV_

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

2016-02-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #9) > Ah, of course. > > 804856f: df ec fucomip %st(4),%st > > pc 0x804856f 0x804856f > st00.5019607843137254902

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread jirislaby at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #15 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #14) > If you apply the latest kcov patch "[PATCH v6] kernel: add kcov code > coverage", it should work. Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then? [1]

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread dvyukov at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #16 from Dmitry Vyukov --- > Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then? Sorry, syzkaller page referred to outdated patch. I was hoping that Andrew will take it soon, so that I can update the link to a more respected l

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

2016-02-02 Thread dvyukov at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #17 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Jakub, I guess you can close this. Sorry again.

[Bug tree-optimization/69595] [6 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bound warning due to missed optimization

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Feb 2 15:19:32 2016 New Revision: 233076 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233076&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-02-02 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/69595

[Bug target/69613] [6 Regression] wrong code with -O and simple 128bit arithmetics and vectors @ aarch64

2016-02-02 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Bisection shows this started with r226901, the big copyrename dropping patch. I didn't investigate whether it's actually the cause of the bug or just exposes another latent one.

[Bug tree-optimization/69599] [6 Regression] libgomp.c fipa-pta tests compiled with -flto -flto-partition=max fail in execution

2016-02-02 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Summary|libgomp

[Bug tree-optimization/69595] [6 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bound warning due to missed optimization

2016-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

2016-02-02 Thread tom at compton dot nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes --- This is C++ so -fexcess-precision=standard is no help as that is C only. Likewise -ffloat-store is, as I understand it, not much help in real world code because you need to make sure that you force stores in o

[Bug lto/69630] New: [6 Regression] LTO ICE in types_same_for_odr at ipa-devirt.c:402

2016-02-02 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630 Bug ID: 69630 Summary: [6 Regression] LTO ICE in types_same_for_odr at ipa-devirt.c:402 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/69630] [6 Regression] LTO ICE in types_same_for_odr at ipa-devirt.c:402

2016-02-02 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- Created attachment 37557 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37557&action=edit test.ii test case

[Bug libstdc++/69626] [6 Regression] std::strtoll etc. no longer defined in c++98 mode

2016-02-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69626 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67032] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN

2016-02-02 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032 --- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue Feb 2 16:07:24 2016 New Revision: 233079 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233079&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67032 * config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)

[Bug target/67032] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN

2016-02-02 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032 --- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue Feb 2 16:08:56 2016 New Revision: 233080 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233080&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67032 * config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)

[Bug target/67032] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN

2016-02-02 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032 --- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue Feb 2 16:10:04 2016 New Revision: 233081 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233081&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67032 * config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)

[Bug rtl-optimization/67609] [5 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

2016-02-02 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/67032] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN

2016-02-02 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69631] New: Bogus overflow in constant expression error

2016-02-02 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69631 Bug ID: 69631 Summary: Bogus overflow in constant expression error Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug tree-optimization/67282] Wrong code with -floop-nest-optimize

2016-02-02 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
-system-zlib --disable-bootstrap --disable-libvtv --disable-libcilkrts --disable-libitm --disable-libgomp --disable-libcc1 --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libssp --enable-isl Thread model: posix gcc version 5.3.1 20160202 (GCC) But not anymore with 6.

[Bug lto/69630] [6 Regression] LTO ICE in types_same_for_odr at ipa-devirt.c:402

2016-02-02 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

2016-02-02 Thread bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt --- Or lose the equality tests on the max values, instead use something like if (b > r && b >= g) I suppose that could still have problems if b and g are equal and one of them is spilled. Someone who knows tha

[Bug c++/69632] New: No error issued for declaring a parameter having a late-specified return type without the 'auto' type specifier

2016-02-02 Thread ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69632 Bug ID: 69632 Summary: No error issued for declaring a parameter having a late-specified return type without the 'auto' type specifier Product: gcc Version: 6.0

[Bug c++/69277] [6 Regression] ICE mangling a flexible array member

2016-02-02 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- In response to another patch for a related problem Jason asked me to change the representation of flexible array members in C++. The alternate representation has an impact on how this bug is dealt with so it'

[Bug rtl-optimization/69633] New: [6 Regression] Redundant move is generated after r228097

2016-02-02 Thread ysrumyan at gmail dot com
ticed that for attached simple test-case extracted from real benchmark one more redundant move instruction is generated (till 20160202 compiler build): before fix (postreload dump) 86: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 4 40: dx:QI=[si:SI] 41: ax:QI=[si:SI+0x1] 42: {si:SI=si:SI+0x3;clobber flags:CC;}

[Bug c++/69632] No error issued for declaring a parameter having a late-specified return type without the 'auto' type specifier

2016-02-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69632 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Status|UNC

[Bug rtl-optimization/69633] [6 Regression] Redundant move is generated after r228097

2016-02-02 Thread ysrumyan at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69633 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- Created attachment 37559 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37559&action=edit test-case to reproduce Need to be compiled with -O2 -m32 -pie -fPIE. Assume that -march=slm is not needed.

  1   2   >