https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Here is a even more reduced testcase which is rejected rather than crashes.
> It is also is rejected on the trunk:
Here is the error message for the rejection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Here is a even more reduced testcase which is rejected rather than crashes.
> It is also is rejected on the trunk:
> template
> struct struct1
> {
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|[12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105643
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Looks like codesize decreased after
r13-754-ga1c9f779f75283427316b5c670c1e01ff8ce9ced.
Now we have cost model for unswitching loop
decorate.c:605:25: note: not unswitching condition, cost too big (37 insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105784
Bug ID: 105784
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive
on partly initialized array
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105783
Bug ID: 105783
Summary: -Wanalyzer-null-dereference false positive with union
and functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #32 from Chris Elrod ---
Ha, I accidentally misreported my gcc version. I was already using 12.1.1.
Using x86-64-v4 worked, excellent! Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
My bad then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #30 from Chris Elrod ---
> #if defined(__clang__)
> #define MULTIVERSION
> \
> __attribute__((target_clones("avx512dq", "avx2", "default")))
> #else
> #define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Thank you, feel free to close then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
using WrappedT = typename TypeWrapperT::type;
is important ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> And has been since GCC 6.
Since GCC 4.4.x. It is not unrolled but that is PR 105781.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Chris Elrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elrodc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105782
Bug ID: 105782
Summary: [sparc64] Emission of questionable movxtod/movdtox
with -mvis3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
Bug ID: 105781
Summary: GCC does not unroll auto-vectorized loops.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
Bug ID: 105780
Summary: GCC does not vectorise filling array of integers with
a value on sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105779
Bug ID: 105779
Summary: internal_error on passing a pointer to static function
to another function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105778
Bug ID: 105778
Summary: Rotate by register --- unnecessary AND instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99080
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff91735a5b861dd6eaf2c1e511f26a9255898e7d
commit r13-860-gff91735a5b861dd6eaf2c1e511f26a9255898e7d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7061
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ad584d538d349db13cfa8440222d91d5e9aff3f
commit r13-859-g1ad584d538d349db13cfa8440222d91d5e9aff3f
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105777
Bug ID: 105777
Summary: Failure to optimize __builtin_mul_overflow with
constant operand to add+cmp check
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:871dbb6112e22ff92914613c332944fd19dd39a8
commit r13-858-g871dbb6112e22ff92914613c332944fd19dd39a8
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1652e3343b1ec47035370801d9b9aca1f8b613f
commit r13-857-gf1652e3343b1ec47035370801d9b9aca1f8b613f
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89845
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a12adfa8bd61e46538ebd97ae927d594843026a
commit r13-856-g2a12adfa8bd61e46538ebd97ae927d594843026a
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43201f2c2173894bf7c423cad6da1c21567e06c0
commit r13-855-g43201f2c2173894bf7c423cad6da1c21567e06c0
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:081c472589329fc6c58c4dfed70f1fbc029083a5
commit r12-8437-g081c472589329fc6c58c4dfed70f1fbc029083a5
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3595231d9f5aec301422b152809b1322bdb525fe
commit r13-854-g3595231d9f5aec301422b152809b1322bdb525fe
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The second one is a target issue.
> For f3, widening multiple pass (which is misnamed these days) detects the
> __builtin_mul_overflow for x86_64 but not for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there are two different issues here.
The second one is a target issue.
For f3, widening multiple pass (which is misnamed these days) detects the
__builtin_mul_overflow for x86_64 but not for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
Bug ID: 105776
Summary: Failure to recognize __builtin_mul_overflow pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105752
--- Comment #4 from Csaba Ráduly ---
Looks like there *was* a bug, I just wasn't able to properly reproduce it
initially:
#include
#include
class CB {
struct DCB {};
};
struct NMC1 : public CB {
int meow() const { return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98723
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
well the right solution is to write the regex by yourself. C++ regex might be
deprecated in the future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #15 from Baruch Burstein ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
>
> > I think the patch would need to wait for GCC 13 now though.
>
> Indeed.
Now that GCC 13 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105775
Bug ID: 105775
Summary: GCC uses an invalid assumption in numeric limits of
char
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105774
--- Comment #1 from Wilhelm M ---
To make it more clear make the type of x *signed char`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105774
Bug ID: 105774
Summary: Bogus overflow in constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105763
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
yeah, from times of yore when the small set of callers made sure it was only
invoked on useful cases. There were a lot of development asserts from initial
development.
There is no reason to trap, it can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105773
Bug ID: 105773
Summary: [Aarch64] Failure to optimize and+cmp to tst
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> I think it would work to keep the constraints for
> const_int_operands that are in a % pair and drop them
> elsewhere. (So a partial reapplication, rather than a
> full reapplication.)
OK, let's throw the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104036
Tomáš Trnka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trnka at scm dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> I was afraid I don't understood the reason of the failure well, although it
> happened very rarely (actually, no failures were detected during the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> FWIW, I think the problem is specific to operands that are
> commutative with a non-constant operand. For example,
> suppose the pre-RA instruction had a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105772
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
As background info, I'm proposing a patch for gdb to have the
architecture-specific prologue skipper skip over the get_pc_thunk call:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-May/189563.html , which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105772
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105772
Bug ID: 105772
Summary: [debug, i386] sched2 moves get_pc_thunk call past
debug_insn
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105763
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It ICEs because ranger asserts on SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI (for whatever
reason...). I have a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
--- Comment #6 from Franck Behaghel
---
Hello,
> Does adding -fno-strict-aliasing fix the issue?
Right, it does.
> I think you have an aliasing violation here.
I can not say if we have aliasing violation here. My understanding is that AV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|matrix partial |matrix partial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105769
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105765
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-30
Summary|[13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on hidden friend|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105760
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.1
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
V changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.1.0 |12.1.1
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think all the case labels are required to have the same types, but the index
can be promoted (such as in this case promotion from char to int). I've looked
at other switch handling cases and they do such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
LGTM - IIRC at some point we required the case labels to have compatible types
to the index, didn't we?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the way to fix the code is to do this:
transpose_upper_to_lower (mat,);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #48 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 May 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
>
> --- Comment #47 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> >
> > The issue is that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think you have an aliasing violation here. Does adding -fno-strict-aliasing
fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53052=edit
gcc13-pr105770.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #47 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> The issue is that the re-association pass doesn't handle operations
> with undefined overflow behavior, we do have duplicate bugreports
> for this.
>
I saw below in match.pd
478/* Combine successive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|[13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 May 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
>
> --- Comment #45 from Hongtao.liu ---
> A reduced testcase.
>
> int a[256];
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
Bug ID: 105771
Summary: matrix partial transposition with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105303
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105303
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pierre-Marie de Rodat
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b7630f2f266346173eb2172a9a96e925010afc5
commit r13-826-g5b7630f2f266346173eb2172a9a96e925010afc5
Author: Yannick Moy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105635
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105770
Bug ID: 105770
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105607
--- Comment #10 from Chris Packham ---
I don't know if it helps at all but it looks like we actually noticed the
difference between GCC 10 and GCC 11. The workaround we have in ct-ng was GCC
11 specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #45 from Hongtao.liu ---
A reduced testcase.
int a[256];
int b[256];
void foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
int tmp = a[i] + 12345;
tmp *= 914237;
tmp += 12332;
tmp *= 914237;
tmp
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
