[Bug gcov-profile/101408] New: [gcov] "__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ " leads to incorrect coverage of case statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101408
Bug ID: 101408
Summary: [gcov] "__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ " leads to incorrect
coverage of case statement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: byone.heng at gmail dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
$./gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/x/project/gcc/build/install/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/x/project/gcc/build/install
--enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20210105 (experimental) (GCC)
$cat test.c
static volatile unsigned long int true_var = 1;
static const unsigned char false_var = 0;
int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
switch (__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__)
{
case 0:
case 1:
case 2:
case -1:
return 0;
default:
return 1;
}
}
$gcc -O0 --coverage test.c;./a.out;gcov test;cat test.c.gcov
-:4:static volatile unsigned long int true_var = 1;
-:5:static const unsigned char false_var = 0;
-:6:
-:7:/* Test that we only see the C99/C11 values for
__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ if
-:8: we are compiling with -std=c11. */
-:9:
1: 10:int main (int argc, char** argv)
-: 11:{
-: 12: switch (__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__)
-: 13:{
-: 14: case 0:
-: 15: case 1:
-: 16: case 2:
-: 17: case -1:
1: 18:return 0;
-: 19: default:
-: 20:return 1;
-: 21:}
-: 22:}
Line 14 should be executed one time.
[Bug go/101407] non-determinism in -fdump-go-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101407 --- Comment #2 from Toolybird --- > Will try to bisect Well, that was a complete waste of time. There seems to an element of randomness to the problem. It turns out that GCC 10 is also affected as I was able to trigger it all the way back to basepoints/gcc-10 I give up for the moment. Hopefully someone who cares about binary reproducibility sees this, is able to replicate and fix.
[Bug tree-optimization/56223] Integer ABS is not recognized for more complicated pattern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I did submit a patch
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574892.html) for:
int abs0(int a, int b)
{
int c = a - b;
if (c <= 0) c = b - a;
return c;
}
But this is unrelated to your original testcase.
[Bug target/101395] [11/12 regression] Compile failure with -march=native -m32 on sapphirerapids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395 --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > Created attachment 51125 [details] > An updated patch This works, thanks.
[Bug go/101407] non-determinism in -fdump-go-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101407 --- Comment #1 from Toolybird --- The bug is present on trunk. Will try to bisect...
[Bug go/101407] New: non-determinism in -fdump-go-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101407
Bug ID: 101407
Summary: non-determinism in -fdump-go-spec
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at airs dot com
Reporter: toolybird at tuta dot io
CC: cmang at google dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm seeing a reproducibility issue when building gcc-go in GCC 11. Every build
run produces a different binary.
I've narrowed down the test case to essentially this:
$ gcc -fdump-go-spec=tmp-1.go -S -o sysinfo.s sysinfo.c
$ gcc -fdump-go-spec=tmp-2.go -S -o sysinfo.s sysinfo.c
$ diff -u tmp-1.go tmp-2.go
--- tmp-1.go2021-07-11 07:26:58.512916883 +1000
+++ tmp-2.go2021-07-11 07:27:07.976340655 +1000
@@ -8519,10 +8519,10 @@
const _PRIxFAST8 = "x"
const ___POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED = 4
const _IPPROTO_MTP = 92
-type ___dirstream struct {}
-type ___va_list_tag struct {}
type _iface struct {}
type ___locale_data struct {}
type __IO_marker struct {}
type __IO_codecvt struct {}
type __IO_wide_data struct {}
+type ___dirstream struct {}
+type ___va_list_tag struct {}
The file in question is libgo/sysinfo.c
The output seems to differ each time. Occasionally it is the same.
This didn't happen with GCC 10. I suppose I should try the trunk but haven't
done so yet.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
[Bug libstdc++/101406] New: shared_ptr in _S_atomic mode still uses __atomic_add_dispatch()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101406
Bug ID: 101406
Summary: shared_ptr in _S_atomic mode still uses
__atomic_add_dispatch()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marc.mutz at kdab dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider
// https://godbolt.org/z/efTW6MoEh
void test_copy(const std::shared_ptr )
{ auto copy = sp; }
vs.
// https://godbolt.org/z/3aoGq1f9P
void test_copy(const boost::shared_ptr )
{ auto copy = sp; }
In the first cast, over 70 lines of assembler are emitted, in the second,
around 30. This seems to be in large part because in
_Sp_counted_base::_M_add_ref_copy(), you're using __atomic_add_dispatch() even
if _Lp is _S_atomic. It seems to me that a specialisation of this function
template for _S_atomic calling just __atomic_add() is missing:
https://godbolt.org/z/crPz9hGe7
Probably same for the deref case, too.
[Bug c++/101405] New: internal compiler error: in reshape_init_class, at cp/decl.c:6483
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101405
Bug ID: 101405
Summary: internal compiler error: in reshape_init_class, at
cp/decl.c:6483
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: carlo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Invalid code.
struct A {
int const a = 1;
int const b = 2;
};
struct B : A {
using A::a;
using A::b;
int const c = 3;
int const d = 4;
};
int main()
{
[[maybe_unused]] B b =
{
.a = 10,
.d = 42
};
}
Result:
prog.cc: In function 'int main()':
prog.cc:19:3: internal compiler error: in reshape_init_class, at cp/decl.c:6483
19 | };
| ^
0x5ffc9b reshape_init_class
../../source/gcc/cp/decl.c:6483
0x5ffc9b reshape_init_r
../../source/gcc/cp/decl.c:6791
0x6b19ac reshape_init(tree_node*, tree_node*, int)
../../source/gcc/cp/decl.c:6867
0x6b3e12 check_initializer
../../source/gcc/cp/decl.c:7064
0x6c7978 cp_finish_decl(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool, tree_node*, int)
../../source/gcc/cp/decl.c:8101
0x7823d7 cp_parser_init_declarator
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:22258
0x760a04 cp_parser_simple_declaration
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:14801
0x76282d cp_parser_declaration_statement
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:13936
0x762ba6 cp_parser_statement
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:12066
0x763d2d cp_parser_statement_seq_opt
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:12433
0x763de0 cp_parser_compound_statement
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:12382
0x78051a cp_parser_function_body
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:24448
0x78051a cp_parser_ctor_initializer_opt_and_function_body
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:24499
0x78174a cp_parser_function_definition_after_declarator
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:30572
0x7828ac cp_parser_function_definition_from_specifiers_and_declarator
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:30488
0x7828ac cp_parser_init_declarator
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:22020
0x760a04 cp_parser_simple_declaration
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:14801
0x78b715 cp_parser_declaration
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:14498
0x78c3a6 cp_parser_toplevel_declaration
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:14527
0x78c3a6 cp_parser_translation_unit
../../source/gcc/cp/parser.c:4958
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug tree-optimization/101403] [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1 by r12-2137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403 --- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Isn't the testcase UB? It reads uninitialized u (though it doesn't use the > value for anything). You are very right about that! The value is used, even though the use is optimised out. I am using -fsanitize=undefined when reducing testcases, but this one wasn't caught. The only warning I see with -Wall -W is "warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]". valgrind also doesn't complain because, obviously, the uninitialised read is optimised out.
[Bug other/101166] Add SPDX license identifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101166 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-10 Keywords||documentation Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- Also brought up on the mailing lists here; I'll confirm: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236717.html
[Bug tree-optimization/101403] [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1 by r12-2137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Isn't the testcase UB? It reads uninitialized u (though it doesn't use the value for anything).
[Bug ipa/101396] [12 Regression] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with -flto and incompatible enum class definitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- Patch sent to gcc-patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574890.html
[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 10, 2021 7:13:47 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 > >--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de de> --- >On July 9, 2021 9:43:52 PM GMT+02:00, "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" > wrote: >>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 >> >>--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- >>Or maybe I misunderstood your request and you wanted an Ada testcase >>where the >>hoisting would still happen despite the fix for C++? > >No, I thought we could have one that's fixed when the hoisting does not >happen... Maybe for that we just have to use the result of the call in the non-throwing case.
[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 9, 2021 9:43:52 PM GMT+02:00, "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 > >--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- >Or maybe I misunderstood your request and you wanted an Ada testcase >where the >hoisting would still happen despite the fix for C++? No, I thought we could have one that's fixed when the hoisting does not happen...
[Bug tree-optimization/101403] [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1 by r12-2137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Testing a fix. Sorry for the inconvenience. An even more reduced test case is:
unsigned int foo (unsigned int a)
{
unsigned int u;
/* b == 0x8000 */
unsigned short b = __builtin_bswap16 (a);
/* result = 0x0008 */
// This works: return b >> 12;
// This doesn't:
return b >> (u, 12);
}
int main (void)
{
unsigned int x = foo (0x80);
if (x != 0x0008)
__builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
The change in signedness of the right shift (from logical to arithmetic)
triggers an oversight in my recent folding optimization.
[Bug tree-optimization/101403] [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1 by r12-2137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|[12 Regression] wrong code |[12 Regression] wrong code |with __builtin_bswap16() at |with __builtin_bswap16() at |-O1 |-O1 by r12-2137 Last reconfirmed||2021-07-10 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- This is introduced by commit 4c619132b3f14dc5e672a7f2f0e09cb784193559 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Thu Jul 8 11:46:14 2021 +0100 PR tree-optimization/40210: Fold (bswap(X)>>C1) to (X>>C3) in match.pd
[Bug tree-optimization/101404] cond_removal_in_popcount_clz_ctz_pattern and factor_out_conditional_conversion do a similar transformation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101404 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2021-07-10 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Mine.
[Bug tree-optimization/101404] New: cond_removal_in_popcount_clz_ctz_pattern and factor_out_conditional_conversion do a similar transformation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101404 Bug ID: 101404 Summary: cond_removal_in_popcount_clz_ctz_pattern and factor_out_conditional_conversion do a similar transformation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Looking into what code could be simplified, I noticed cond_removal_in_popcount_clz_ctz_pattern and factor_out_conditional_conversion are really doing a similar transformation and could even be combined. Yes cond_removal_in_popcount_clz_ctz_pattern checks the conditional part of the if statement but I don't think it needs to really.
[Bug tree-optimization/92335] [10/11/12 Regression] sinking of loads happen too early which causes vectorization not to be done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92335 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Known to work||7.3.0 Summary|missed transformation to|[10/11/12 Regression] |branchless |sinking of loads happen too ||early which causes ||vectorization not to be ||done Known to fail||10.1.0 Target Milestone|--- |10.4 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I looked into this and find we are sinking the load of y[i] too early. That is using -fno-tree-sink, we are able to produce the optimized code. It would also mean it is a regression even and yes the testcase in comment #3 was able to produce vectorized code in GCC 7.3.0.
[Bug tree-optimization/101403] [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Component|target |tree-optimization --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Most likely introduced by r12-2137.
[Bug ipa/101396] [12 Regression] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with -flto and incompatible enum class definitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0
[Bug target/101403] New: [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101403 Bug ID: 101403 Summary: [12 Regression] wrong code with __builtin_bswap16() at -O1 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zsojka at seznam dot cz Target Milestone: --- Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Created attachment 51129 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51129=edit reduced testcase $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O testcase.c $ ./a.out Aborted $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-amd64/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-trunk-r12-2234-20210709194853-g1798cac7a8b-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: /repo/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-valgrind-annotations --disable-nls --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df,extra --disable-bootstrap --with-cloog --with-ppl --with-isl --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld --with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch --prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-2234-20210709194853-g1798cac7a8b-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 12.0.0 20210710 (experimental) (GCC)
[Bug ipa/101396] [12 Regression] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with -flto and incompatible enum class definitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- Created attachment 51128 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51128=edit proposed patch Patch proposed. Will bootstrap & regtest to make sure it correct.
[Bug ipa/101396] [12 Regression] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 building webkitgtk-2.32.2 with -flto -fipa-pta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Testcase:
$ cat a.cpp
enum class A : __INT32_TYPE__ {
a,
b,
c
};
int main()
{
return (int) A::a;
}
$ cat b.cpp
enum class A : __UINT64_TYPE__ {
a,
b,
c
};
int f(enum A x)
{
return (int) x;
}
$ ~/gcc-trunk/bin/g++ a.cpp b.cpp -flto
during IPA pass: odr
lto1: internal compiler error: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984
[Bug tree-optimization/96392] Optimize x+0.0 if x is an integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96392 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle --- The optimization is now implemented in mainline GCC.
[Bug tree-optimization/40210] gcc byte swap builtins inadequately optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40210 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #13 from Roger Sayle --- All of the (bswap-related) optimizations mentioned in PR tree-optimization/40210 are now implemented in mainline GCC.
[Bug target/11877] gcc should use xor trick with -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11877 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #12 from Roger Sayle --- Fixed on mainline thanks to Jakub's patch.
