https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #103 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #102)
> Created attachment 55543 [details]
> Arithmetic right shift late expanding v2
>
> Here's the patch. I hope I did not miss anything.
>
Sorry, I've been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #21 from Rui Ueyama ---
I fixed several issues in mold related to POWER10 compatibility, and all its
unit tests pass on gcc120! I also confirmed that mold can now bootstrap itself
with `-mcpu=power10`. So I believe it's now usable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111424
--- Comment #3 from Chenghui Pan ---
vect.exp is enabled in master branch for now, but there's some
check_effective_target procs in gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp that
seems need modifying for enabling more vectorization tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107704
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> ACK. And as I mentioned, the RTL form looks like it ought to be caught by
> the SH specific code to optimize T reg handling. I don't care enough about
> the SH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111784
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] aarch64:|[14 Regression] aarch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-12-05 00:00:00 |2023-10-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111786
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> We completely intentionally don't emit tail calls to noreturn functions, so
> that e.g. in case of abort one doesn't need to virtually reconstruct
> backtrace.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-12
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86120
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66969
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.kluepfel at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:611eef7609f732db65c119a7eab6d50a5fdd5985
commit r14-4600-g611eef7609f732db65c119a7eab6d50a5fdd5985
Author: Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111791
Bug ID: 111791
Summary: RISC-V: Strange loop vectorizaion on popcount function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111783
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> This leaves ABORT and EXIT to deal with.
Speaking to myself:
subroutine s1()
call exit(1)
stop 98
end
subroutine s2()
call abort
stop 99
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111783
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Candidate fix:
--- a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc
@@ -1072,7 +1072,7 @@ cp_fold_immediate_r (tree *stmt_p, int *walk_subtrees,
void *data_)
/* We're done here. Don't clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27504
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=27504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111790
--- Comment #1 from Tinko Sebastian Bartels ---
A command line that can trigger the behavior is
g++ main.cpp
One of the versions for which it occurs is
g++ -v
Es werden eingebaute Spezifikationen verwendet.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111790
Bug ID: 111790
Summary: Unwarranted missing template keyword warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamsupermouse at mail dot ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111622
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
Interesting.
The "fix" turns out to be:
commit 9ea74d235c7e7816b996a17c61288f02ef767985
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu Sep 14 09:31:23 2023 +0200
tree-optimization/111294 - better DCE after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111789
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#0 0x00402521 in func_4 (p_5=, p_6=p_6@entry=0x406044
, p_7=21909, p_8=, p_9=398526839) at
/home/cuisk/gcc/tmp/a.c:134
=> 0x00402521 <+193>: mov(%r9),%r11d
r9 0x40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|Segmentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111789
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 56100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56100=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111789
Bug ID: 111789
Summary: Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-inline
-fno-toplevel-reorder'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111788
Bug ID: 111788
Summary: g++ DWARF for void foo(...) missing unspecified
parameters DIE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|'exit' intrinsic should be |'exit' intrinsic should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80917
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 56098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56098=edit
Evidence for replies in last attachment
As promised in the previous entry in this PR.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111784
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
More context/details about the issue in 8/10 of the original patch series (that
the above revision comes from):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630234.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111787
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53a94071fa9e90e268a94adbdc903bd868ddeec1
commit r14-4596-g53a94071fa9e90e268a94adbdc903bd868ddeec1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111787
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This system is on RHEL 8 which has gcc 8.5 as the distro compiler.
And yes, the patch worked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e99ad401f84ca6cd2717a58a116e44274d55da70
commit r14-4595-ge99ad401f84ca6cd2717a58a116e44274d55da70
Author: Mary Bennett
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111787
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does
2023-10-12 Jakub Jelinek
PR bootstrap/111787
* tree.h (wi::int_traits ::needs_write_val_arg): New
static data member.
(int_traits >::needs_write_val_arg): Likewise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111787
Bug ID: 111787
Summary: [14 regression] xxx breaks build
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That patch works fine on a system where the build was failing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 52994, which changed state.
Bug 52994 Summary: [OOP] [F08] internal compiler error: in
gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6881
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111786
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #112 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d00385eaf72ccacff17935b0d214a26773e095f
commit r14-4592-g0d00385eaf72ccacff17935b0d214a26773e095f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111786
Bug ID: 111786
Summary: No tail recursion for simple program
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #13 from David C. Manuelda ---
I'd suggest for now to pick a common value in order to prevent the compilation
failure (in stage comparison) while a proper fix/workaround is picked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111785
Bug ID: 111785
Summary: [modules] ICE when compiling fmt lib as module
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111784
Bug ID: 111784
Summary: [14 Regression] aarch64: ldp_stp_{15,16,17,18}.c test
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111783
Bug ID: 111783
Summary: 'exit' intrinsic should be marked as
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #23 from Robin Dapp ---
For the lack of a better idea (and time constraints as looking for compiler
bottlenecks is slow and tedious) I went with Kito's suggestion of splitting
insn-emit.cc
This reduces this part of the compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56091|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #10)
> > indeed (but I believe it did happen with Alder Lake already, by accident,
> > with AVX512 on P-cores but not on E-cores).
>
> AVX512 is physically fused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
> indeed (but I believe it did happen with Alder Lake already, by accident,
> with AVX512 on P-cores but not on E-cores).
AVX512 is physically fused off for Alderlake P-core, P-core and E-core share
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111779
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=111781
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #8)
> indeed (but I believe it did happen with Alder Lake already, by accident,
> with AVX512 on P-cores but not on E-cores).
AFAIK on those Alder Lake CPUs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #8 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> I'm afraid hybrid CPUs with varying ISA feature sets are not practical for
> the current ecosystem: you wouldn't be able to reschedule from a higher- to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111782
Bug ID: 111782
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Extra move in complex double
multiplication
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #8 from mary.bennett at embecosm dot com ---
Thanks for pinging me, Jeff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
mary.bennett at embecosm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mary.bennett at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
Bug ID: 111781
Summary: Compiler error on valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111755
--- Comment #4 from kuzume ---
I apologize, but I will retract this report. I've realized that the IRQ handler
call of a certain RTOS I'm using is invoking with $sp as a multiple of 4, not
8. This violates the ARM ABI convention.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05f98310b54da95e468d799f4a910174320cccbb
commit r14-4588-g05f98310b54da95e468d799f4a910174320cccbb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111780
Bug ID: 111780
Summary: Missed optimization of '(t*4)/(t*2) -> 2'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111779
Bug ID: 111779
Summary: Fail to vectorize the struct include struct
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
-fno-lifetime-dse fixes the issue (and the diagnostic)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111769
--- Comment #4 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> If you compile with debug info enabled the info should be already there,
> just nothing looks at this (and mismatches) at link time.
Perhaps I should file this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111424
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by LuluCheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2a51b6982c895ff3e37bda622303e92b3ac1d16
commit r14-4585-ga2a51b6982c895ff3e37bda622303e92b3ac1d16
Author: Chenghui Pan
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111769
--- Comment #3 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> IIRC there was a bug about this specific thing which was closed as fixed
> with the use of LTO ...
Certainly if you use LTO, then this is not necessary. But LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Shorter testcase, fails at -O2 -ftree-vectorize
short b;
int main()
{
b = 2;
for (int a = 1; a <= 9; a++)
b = b * b;
if (b != 0)
__builtin_abort ();
}
it "works" with unsigned short b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, that's not enough, the issue is this is detected as reduction at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #6 from Arsen Arsenović ---
this poses another problem too, though: should big and little cores ever differ
in ISA support levels, building on big cores (which seems like a reasonable
thing to do) with -march=native could lead to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67740
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:701363d827d45d3e3601735fa42f95644fda8b64
commit r14-4583-g701363d827d45d3e3601735fa42f95644fda8b64
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
--- Comment #2 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Thanks so much for reporting this issue, and thanks for tracing down it!
For the code, if 'lz' is 0, it is correct to return false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, that's one which could be also backported. Let me submit the other bits
upstream as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108396
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #9)
> I made a copy of rs6000-overload.def and then with a series of emacs macros
> converted the list of builtins to a script to grep for the builtins in the
> test
95 matches
Mail list logo
