https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51049
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So at -O1 we get what we expect:
```
_1 = *i_4(D);
_7 = j_5(D) != 2;
_8 = _1 != 0;
_9 = _7 & _8;
if (_9 != 0)
goto ; [43.56%]
else
goto ; [56.44%]
[local count: 467721933]:
_6 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110873
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there are other missed optimizations later on too even in GCC 13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110883
--- Comment #2 from 海山 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> autofdo is not well supported and fixes for it only made it into GCC 12 and
> not GCC 10.x.
>
> Please try GCC 12.x or newer and report back.
>
> Also since you are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110883
Bug ID: 110883
Summary: internal compiler error: in
ipa_profile_write_edge_summary
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110876
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I looked into the code and I think this is a boost issue, it is specifically
catching the abort signal and recovering and then exit is called and messes up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110876
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang trunk has the same failure.
clang 11.0.0 has the same failure.
clang 10.0.0 references https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/189 .
I am thinking this is boost issue because both clang and GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110882
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110882
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
It's failing this assertion:
#1 0x016e2295 in ana::binding_key::make (mgr=0x7fff91d8,
r=0x3275340) at ../../src/gcc/analyzer/store.cc:132
132 gcc_assert (bit_size > 0);
(gdb)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110882
Bug ID: 110882
Summary: ICE with -fanalyzer on zero-sized array
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not happy with the patch I came up with but it does reduce the amount of
iterating and 100% makes sure it is bound so it will work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(gdb) p debug_tree(expr1)
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set 1 canonical-type
0x778215e8 precision:32 min max
pointer_to_this >
visited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fafe2d18f791c6b97b49af7c84b1b5703681c3af
commit r14-2933-gfafe2d18f791c6b97b49af7c84b1b5703681c3af
Author: Eric Feng
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110880
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes it is a dup of bug 109977:
(insn:TI 14 11 21 (set (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 __trans_tmp_1.raw_+0 S8 A64])
(vec_duplicate:V2SF (reg:SF 2 x2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110881
Bug ID: 110881
Summary: Feature request: an attribute for enum members that
would skip the -Wswitch-enum warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110880
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Compiler details:
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/<>/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-stage-final-gcc-14.0.0/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110880
Bug ID: 110880
Summary: [14 Regression] aarch64 ICE on highway-1.0.5: internal
compiler error: output_operand: incompatible floating
point / vector register operand for '%s'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh the difference between -O1 and -O2 is due to in fre:
/* At -O[1g] use the cheap non-iterating mode. */
bool iterate_p = may_iterate && (optimize > 1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > There is a stack overflow while executing the FRE pass.
>
> I can confirm over 100,000 stack frames.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> There is a stack overflow while executing the FRE pass.
I can confirm over 100,000 stack frames.
Which -f flag causes the FRE pass to be executed ?
I assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 55679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55679=edit
C source code
Another test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110878
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Taylor R Campbell from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > This is basically a dup of bug 108154 I think.
>
> That one appears to be different: it trips
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110878
--- Comment #3 from Taylor R Campbell
---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> There is another bug report dealing with this. But IIRC this is an expected
> warning as foo is being passed an array which is size 16 but then passed to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41ef5a34161356817807be3a2e51fbdbe575ae85
commit r14-2932-g41ef5a34161356817807be3a2e51fbdbe575ae85
Author: Stefan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41ef5a34161356817807be3a2e51fbdbe575ae85
commit r14-2932-g41ef5a34161356817807be3a2e51fbdbe575ae85
Author: Stefan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||108154
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110878
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is another bug report dealing with this. But IIRC this is an expected
warning as foo is being passed an array which is size 16 but then passed to bar
as size 128 which would be undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110879
Bug ID: 110879
Summary: Unnecessary reread from memory in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110878
Bug ID: 110878
Summary: -Wstringop-overread incorrectly warns about arguments
to functions with static array parameter declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110877
Bug ID: 110877
Summary: Incorrect copy of allocatable component in polymorphic
assignment from array dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
struct S1 {
unsigned f0;
};
static int g_161;
void func_109(unsigned g_227, unsigned t) {
struct S1 l_178;
int l_160 = 0x1FAE99D5L;
int *l_230[] = {_160};
if (l_160) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88286
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this might be the common attribute on an local variable decl that is
causing the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Stack backtrace seems to be:
#0 0x00a0b511 in operand_compare::verify_hash_value (flags=0,
this=, arg0=, arg1=,
ret=) at ../../trunk.year/gcc/fold-const.cc:4074
#1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101027
Moritz Sichert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sichert at in dot tum.de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110876
--- Comment #1 from Dvir Yitzchaki ---
Created attachment 55676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55676=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110876
Bug ID: 110876
Summary: AddressSanitizer: false positive bad-free
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Moncef Mechri changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||moncef.mechri at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I've send a patch for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626075.html
and thanks for testing :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Thanks for testing so quickly :)
I've send a patch for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626075.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110875
Bug ID: 110875
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-2501-g285c9d042e9
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110874
Bug ID: 110874
Summary: ice with -O2 with recent gcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
--- Comment #16 from Tomas Kalibera ---
(In reply to Julian Waters from comment #15)
> It seems like the patch also doesn't fix the strftime case too, strangely
> enough. gcc with that patch applied still causes a compilation failure in
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110873
Bug ID: 110873
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at
-O2 since r14-376-g47a76439911
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88420
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110857
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #20)
> Can we revert the Comment #13 kludge now?
When we revert it we get
integrated RA : 0.42 ( 17%) 0.00 ( 0%) 0.43 ( 17%)
19M (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106293
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #24)
> g:2e93b92c1ec5fbbbe10765c6e059c3c90d564245 fixes the profile update after
> cancelled distribution. However it does not help hmmer since we actually
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Can we revert the Comment #13 kludge now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
For sparc we already see some sort of pre-optimization which "breaks" the new
test cases. For example, for test cmp-mem-const-1.c we have prior combine:
(insn 14 13 41 2 (set (reg:SI 117)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106293
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
g:2e93b92c1ec5fbbbe10765c6e059c3c90d564245 fixes the profile update after
cancelled distribution. However it does not help hmmer since we actually
vectorize that loop iterating 0 times. We need to figure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92335
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:399c8dd44ff44f4b496223c7cc980651c4d6f6a0
commit r14-2927-g399c8dd44ff44f4b496223c7cc980651c4d6f6a0
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Why would that depend on this new option?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>> Can you test the patch in bug 110867 comment #1 to see if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07b7cd70399d22c113ad8bb1eff5cc2d12973d33
commit r14-2920-g07b7cd70399d22c113ad8bb1eff5cc2d12973d33
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why would that depend on this new option? It's a requirement of the standard,
it has to be true always.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81904
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0b7a61d83534fc8f7aa593b1f0f0357a371a800
commit r14-2919-gf0b7a61d83534fc8f7aa593b1f0f0357a371a800
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Jul
73 matches
Mail list logo
