https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 107822, which changed state.
Bug 107822 Summary: [13/14/14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at
-Os (trunk vs. 12.2.0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107822
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #15 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #11)
> @jwakely, I propose that this issue should be recategorized as a compiler
> bug. (And I'm also voting effectively "NAD" on LWG3967.)
Hmm... IMO given the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #13)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #10 from Chenghui Pan ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #9)
> Thanks for the reproducer and sorry for the hassle.
>
> The normal form of a constant for a mode with fewer bits than in
> HOST_WIDE_INT is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85316
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108360
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch which gets us to:
```
short int b.2_1;
...
b.2_1 = b;
_2 = b.2_1 <= 0;
_4 = (char) _2;
f = _4;
f.5_5 = (unsigned char) _2;
_6 = f.5_5 << 4;
e = _6;
_19 = b.2_1 <= 0;
_7 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108397
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch to fix the testcase in comment #2.
After that patch we have:
```
_1 = o_10(D) == 0;
_2 = (long long int) _1;
_3 = -_2;
t1_11 = (long long unsigned int) _3;
_4 = t1_11 ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-09
CC|
./a.out
18446744073670629653
Aborted (core dumped)
>$ /usr/bin/g++-11 -O0 test.cpp && ./a.out
1
gcc version 14.0.0 20230808 (20659be04c2749f9f47b085f1789eee0d145fb36)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110953
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Parameters
9+ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
floating-point and __m128
stack XMM7 XMM6 XMM5 XMM4 XMM3 XMM2 XMM1 XMM0
__m256
stack YMM7 YMM6 YMM5 YMM4 YMM3 YMM2 YMM1 YMM0
__m512
stack ZMM7 ZMM6 ZMM5 ZMM4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110953
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
TLDR:
floating-point and __m128
stack XMM8 XMM7 XMM6 XMM5 XMM4 XMM3 XMM2 XMM1 XMM0
__m256
stack YMM8 YMM7 YMM6 YMM5 YMM4 YMM3 YMM2 YMM1 YMM0
__m512
stack ZMM8 ZMM7 ZMM6 ZMM5 ZMM4 ZMM3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110953
Bug ID: 110953
Summary: Introducing the "wincall" Calling Convention for GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108397
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> > Not sure if these are dupes or not (would we want a non-analyzer
> > implementation of this warning?)
>
> Do we want a non-analyzer implementation of this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21824
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55656
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > > fixed on master
> > > e.g.
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100457
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[meta-bug] Enabling O2 |[meta-bug] Bugs relating to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110952
Bug ID: 110952
Summary: Allocator::pointer is required to be implicitly
convertible from and into a native pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> inline void mbedtls_put_unaligned_uint64(void *p, uint64_t x)
> {
> memcpy(p, , sizeof(x));
> }
>
>
> We deciding to not inline this, while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108397
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also:
```
int f(int a, int b)
{
int c = a == b;
c = -c;
return c <= -1;
}
```
At `-O2 -fwrapv` is not optimized at the gimple level but is at the RTL level
even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #13 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> I suspect this is a dup of bug 100470 then.
Yep, I agree. My previous comment was a longwinded version of jwakely's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108397
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have seen other bug reports having a similar issue too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108397
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the simple missed optimization here is:
```
int f2(int a)
{
if(a != -1 && a != 0)
__builtin_unreachable();
unsigned c = a;
if(c > 121212)
return 1;
return 0;
}
```
This should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110951
--- Comment #1 from Edwin Lu ---
On rv32 newlib GCC 12 the issue is different and might be unrelated:
- ABI is incompatible with that of the selected emulation:
target emulation `elf64-littleriscv' does not match `elf32-littleriscv'
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this is a dup of bug 100470 then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110951
Bug ID: 110951
Summary: [13/14] RISCV: rv32 newlib gcc.c-torture testsuite
fails with xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable
multilib set for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Ah, the non-static inlines are intentional, the corresponding extern
declarations appear in library/platform_util.c. Sorry, I missed that file the
first time around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100482
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a90bd3ea6d1ba27b15476f0a768d7952c6723420
commit r14-3087-ga90bd3ea6d1ba27b15476f0a768d7952c6723420
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110938
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith ---
Looks like the trait difference only happens if the templated constructor is
not deleted, but the ABI mismatch happens regardless. Possibly there are two
separate issues here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110950
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Bennett ---
Created attachment 55709
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55709=edit
Script to run the compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110950
Bug ID: 110950
Summary: RISC-V vector ICE in expand_const_vector
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110949
Bug ID: 110949
Summary: ((cast)cmp) - 1 should be tranformed into (cast)cmp`
where cmp` is the inverse of cmp
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Note that inline functions in mbedtls/library/alignment.h all miss the
> 'static' qualifier, which affects inlining decisions, and looks like a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #9 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Thanks for the reproducer and sorry for the hassle.
The normal form of a constant for a mode with fewer bits than in HOST_WIDE_INT
is a sign extended version of the original constant. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110832
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad5b757d99b5a121198b79a6a42c1f15ae86a190
commit r14-3085-gad5b757d99b5a121198b79a6a42c1f15ae86a190
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Why? There's no bswap here, in particular mbedtls_put_unaligned_uint64 is a
straightforward wrapper for memcpy:
inline void mbedtls_put_unaligned_uint64(void *p, uint64_t x)
{
memcpy(p, ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 55707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55707=edit
pr110378-1.C.083i.sra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110860
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110860
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a059403794add2934961780662e320ba77798a7e
commit r13-7699-ga059403794add2934961780662e320ba77798a7e
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f0152a93d15b24ebc7f6c7455baaded6a63fb2e
commit r13-7698-g0f0152a93d15b24ebc7f6c7455baaded6a63fb2e
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110862
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55eb7e92a60adfae43aaf58bb9c81050d39d82c9
commit r13-7697-g55eb7e92a60adfae43aaf58bb9c81050d39d82c9
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||92716
--- Comment #7 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94162
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101943
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110948
Bug ID: 110948
Summary: Incorrect -Winvalid-constexpr on virtual defaulted
operator==
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Bug 103281 depends on bug 28794, which changed state.
Bug 28794 Summary: missed optimization with non-COND_EXPR and vrp and
comparisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28794
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110947
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65213
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aadc5c07feb0ab08729ab25d0d896b55860ad9e6
commit r14-3084-gaadc5c07feb0ab08729ab25d0d896b55860ad9e6
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28794
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aadc5c07feb0ab08729ab25d0d896b55860ad9e6
commit r14-3084-gaadc5c07feb0ab08729ab25d0d896b55860ad9e6
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110947
Bug ID: 110947
Summary: Should -Wmissing-variable-declarations not trigger on
register variables?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109956
--- Comment #15 from Martin Uecker ---
GCC seems to allocate enough for sizeof(struct foo) + n * sizeof(char) but not
for sizeof(struct { int a; char b; char t[n]; }).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> > index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #6 from Dave Rodgman ---
Under clang, we see that mbedtls_xor being inlined, or not, causes an
equivalent perf difference. Note that mbedtls_xor is inline in the gcc O2
version and not in the gcc Os version.
Not inline mbedtls_xor,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, and the patch will pessimize cases like str.assign(str2.begin(),
str2.end()) where
str.capacity() >= str2.capacity().
The current implementation in terms of replace(begin(), end(), first, last)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #11 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #10)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #9)
> > > > I don't see how that helps. Imagine a preserve_all function foo that
> > > > calls
> > > > printf. How
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #5 from Dave Rodgman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Note you shouldn't use -Os if you care about performance. GCC is quite
> reasonable with code size increases at -O2 (as compared to other compilers).
> Instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 49955, which changed state.
Bug 49955 Summary: Fails to do partial basic-block SLP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49955
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49955
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9f3ea61fe36e2de3354b90b65ff8245099114c9
commit r14-3078-gd9f3ea61fe36e2de3354b90b65ff8245099114c9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
Dave Rodgman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Component|ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |ipa
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ec413098bd334115aff73fc755e49afd3ac371
commit r14-3076-g31ec413098bd334115aff73fc755e49afd3ac371
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> With this change we make a single allocation+copy and then do a cheap move
> assignment:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would also benefit this overload:
basic_string&
assign(initializer_list<_CharT> __l)
{ return this->assign(__l.begin(), __l.size()); }
That currently goes via replace(begin(),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110779
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Gaius Mulley ---
> Created attachment 55703
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55703=edit
> Proposed fix (addendum)
>
> Here is a patch which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
--- Comment #1 from Dave Rodgman ---
Disassembly under -Os:
139c :
139c: a9b67bfdstp x29, x30, [sp, #-160]!
13a0: 910003fdmov x29, sp
13a4: a9046bf9stp x25, x26,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> And _M_replace_dispatch creates a new copy anyway:
>
> _M_replace_dispatch(const_iterator __i1, const_iterator __i2,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan Schultke from comment #8)
> From what I could read in the `char_traits::move` code that presumably gets
> called, this function explicitly tests for overlap between the memory
> regions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110946
Bug ID: 110946
Summary: 3x perf regression with -Os on M1 Pro
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That improves things:
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #8 from Chenghui Pan ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #6)
> I tried to reproduce it with a cross compiler while using the reproducer
> from PR110867 without getting an ICE. Can you attach a pre processed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #7 from Chenghui Pan ---
Created attachment 55706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55706=edit
preprocessed file of gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.cc, ICE occurred in this place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #8 from Jan Schultke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Please provide the testcase in a usable form, not just a link to an external
> site (which uses its own custom benchmark macros). This is requested at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(except with correct allocator propagation)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Please provide the testcase in a usable form, not just a link to an external
> site (which uses its own custom benchmark macros). This is requested at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please provide the testcase in a usable form, not just a link to an external
site (which uses its own custom benchmark macros). This is requested at
https://gcc.gnu.org/
The relevant code is:
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I tried to reproduce it with a cross compiler while using the reproducer from
PR110867 without getting an ICE. Can you attach a pre processed source file
and a corresponding gcc invocation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #3 from Jan Schultke ---
When increasing the input size to 8 MiB, the results become more similar to
what clang delivers for 1 MiB too:
https://quick-bench.com/q/DFHYW6eZq-FAif8xuLkBOPwzYWA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #2 from Jan Schultke ---
Also it looks like GCC doesn't emit memcpy or memmove in either of the first
benchmarks. Those statements refer to the corresponding clang output, actually.
What's consistent for both compilers is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
Jan Schultke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
