https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326
--- Comment #2 from felix ---
Created attachment 47681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47681=edit
Optimised into a jumptable, then load of an immediate (-O3 -fno-pic)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326
--- Comment #1 from felix ---
Created attachment 47680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47680=edit
Optimised into a lookup table of constants (-O3 -fno-pic)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326
Bug ID: 93326
Summary: switch optimisation of multiple jumptables into a
lookup
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
friendly reminder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93318
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Ok,
I managed to reproduce the crash locally (it was not that easy)
At the point of failure the node passes verification and I suppose
problem is that the call stmt hash contains indirect call while it is
Ok,
I managed to reproduce the crash locally (it was not that easy)
At the point of failure the node passes verification and I suppose
problem is that the call stmt hash contains indirect call while it is
supposed to contain direct call.
Edge removal code probably replaces direct edge by indreict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note prepare_block_for_update has been this way since 2005 with
g:0bca51f080dfff5e943b1f1775d874a73bbc441a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 47679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47679=edit
fully untested patch
This patch improves prepare_block_for_update but there might be others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a bug.
You requested inlining a lot. And that increases the number of basic blocks by
a lot because of recursive inlining.
I can decrease the stack recusriveness slightly by peeling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like it started with g:3075affdbcb3232fe549fbeed87bd94114c14758
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93324
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320
--- Comment #4 from Mike Redd ---
FWIW: My code had a problem, but it would have been much easier to debug if the
compile didn't crash. :-)
In other words, it is possibly not important to handle "type_pack_expansion" in
a meaningful way here--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
We crash in is_base_type because it gets
(gdb) p type
$1 =
and that is not handled:
12990 gcc_unreachable ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #6)
>
> > No. I do not do git and have little time/need/interest
> > in learning.
>
> In that case, I hope you don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
size_info->size = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcfc2227c556f2801a657ce3007374732baa8333
commit r10-6077-gbcfc2227c556f2801a657ce3007374732baa8333
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93325
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93325
Bug ID: 93325
Summary: libstdc++ wrongly uses direct clock_gettime syscall on
non-glibc, breaks time64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93324
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> No. I do not do git and have little time/need/interest
> in learning.
In that case, I hope you don't mind if I take this up.
I'm just learning git myself (having
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
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=93324
Bug ID: 93324
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE with -Wall on constexpr if
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It worked with:
gcc version 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
g:c6579387bdc84adc76fbb0aa04e4942dd21d4ff0
Trying to do a git bisect right now.
---
I saw this while I was looking at my testsuite results; I test sometimes with
-fPIC.
gcc version 10.0.1 20200119 (experimental) [master revision
6a9a10407ef:19bdd6115e4:c7518183b8058b31d10a77bc0e2d392552ffbf0d] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323
Bug ID: 93323
Summary: Internal Compiler Error in unify at cp/pt.c:22219
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322
Bug ID: 93322
Summary: [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with
-fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Bug ID: 93321
Summary: Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93319
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Steve,
> Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
> ===
> --- gcc/fortran/primary.c (revision 279052)
> +++ gcc/fortran/primary.c (working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93318
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:118aa5e31ce479bb81a003199b4c6ca0d997c9a2
commit r10-6074-g118aa5e31ce479bb81a003199b4c6ca0d997c9a2
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15)
> Did we conclude that this is an expected race condition?
>
> I run the example comment 14 and it just hangs for me.
It's certainly not mandated to work, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44960
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
--- Comment #5 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To add a specialized class for tree lattices is a way, but will complicate the
code. We can simple remove the assertion. And a one-file test case was made
from original files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
--- Comment #4 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47676=edit
all-in-one test case
47 matches
Mail list logo
