[Bug target/113133] [14 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses(rtx_def*) (emit-rtl.cc:3896) with -O -fno-tree-ter -mavx512f -march=barcelona

2024-01-01 Thread haochen.jiang at intel dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113133 --- Comment #11 from Haochen Jiang --- I just checked the code and pattern. I suppose the simple remove is reasonable here. We should only allow x/ymm16+ for scalar instructions, but not this pattern.

[Bug middle-end/113194] Hangup build ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp at -Og

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113194 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- There seems to be some high memory usage in the front-end though: template instantiation : 12.13 ( 29%) 4.33 ( 35%) 16.72 ( 31%) 759M ( 44%) But other than that it works for me on

[Bug middle-end/113194] Hangup build ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp at -Og

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113194 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Works for me with r14-6875-g3a7dd24eadeb91 on x86_64: ./cc1plus tmp/ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp.ii -quiet -Og -fPIC -fno-semantic-interposition -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-lifetime-dse -ffunction-sections

[Bug c++/113194] Hangup build ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp at -Og

2024-01-01 Thread paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113194 --- Comment #1 from Paul Hua --- Created attachment 56972 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56972=edit preprocessed file

[Bug ada/113195] New: gnat bug box when comparing access to subtype with access inside record

2024-01-01 Thread nicolas at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113195 Bug ID: 113195 Summary: gnat bug box when comparing access to subtype with access inside record Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/113194] New: Hangup build ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp at -Og

2024-01-01 Thread paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113194 Bug ID: 113194 Summary: Hangup build ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp at -Og Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/113193] New: [SH] ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.cc:1177 with -mfcsa -funsafe-math-operations

2024-01-01 Thread zack+gcc at buhman dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113193 Bug ID: 113193 Summary: [SH] ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.cc:1177 with -mfcsa -funsafe-math-operations Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/113112] RISC-V: Dynamic LMUL feature stabilization for GCC-14 release

2024-01-01 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113112 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Pan Li : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a29b00365a07745c4ba2ed2af374e7c732aaeb3 commit r14-6877-g9a29b00365a07745c4ba2ed2af374e7c732aaeb3 Author: Juzhe-Zhong Date: Fri Dec

[Bug middle-end/113182] [14 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-namespace.C -std=c++14 execution test

2024-01-01 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113182 --- Comment #5 from John David Anglin --- The problem is TREE_SYMBOL_REFERENCED is not set for libfuncs. This fixes problem on hppa64-hpux: bash-5.1$ git diff gcc/varasm.cc diff --git a/gcc/varasm.cc b/gcc/varasm.cc index

[Bug middle-end/88345] -Os overrides -falign-functions=N on the command line

2024-01-01 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345 --- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 56970 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56970=edit Patch I am testing Hi, this adds -falign-all-functions parameter. It still look like more reasonable (and backward

[Bug libgomp/113192] New: [14 Regression] ERROR: couldn't execute "../../../gcc/libgomp/testsuite/flock": no such file or directory

2024-01-01 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113192 Bug ID: 113192 Summary: [14 Regression] ERROR: couldn't execute "../../../gcc/libgomp/testsuite/flock": no such file or directory Product: gcc Version: 14.0

[Bug target/109133] Error: operands mismatch -- statement `movec %d0,%cacr' ignored

2024-01-01 Thread schwab--- via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109133 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug target/109133] Error: operands mismatch -- statement `movec %d0,%cacr' ignored

2024-01-01 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109133 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/113191] New: [10.1/11/12/13/14 Regression] Incorrect overload resolution when base class function introduced with a using declaration is more constrained than a function declared in the deriv

2024-01-01 Thread waffl3x at protonmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113191 Bug ID: 113191 Summary: [10.1/11/12/13/14 Regression] Incorrect overload resolution when base class function introduced with a using declaration is more constrained than a function

[Bug target/80786] m68k: internal compiler error: in change_address_1

2024-01-01 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80786 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---

[Bug web/113190] Alert not to report bugs against EOL releases

2024-01-01 Thread eyalroz1 at gmx dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com --- Comment

[Bug web/113190] New: Alert not to report bugs against EOL releases

2024-01-01 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190 Bug ID: 113190 Summary: Alert not to report bugs against EOL releases Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > > This PR is for the sysv ABI, while most discussion was about the "ELFv1" > > ABI. > >

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > This PR is for the sysv ABI, while most discussion was about the "ELFv1" ABI. Doesn't the subject clearly mention "powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu"?

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- This PR is for the sysv ABI, while most discussion was about the "ELFv1" ABI. Only the 64-bit ABIs have the code model ABI, for the powerpc*-*-* configurations. Some other architectures have it for

[Bug tree-optimization/113189] `(-X * Y) * -X` can be optimized to `(X * Y) * X`

2024-01-01 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113189 --- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers --- If Y is INT_MIN and X is -1, removing the negations introduces undefined behavior in the first example (-(-1) * INT_MIN * -(-1) is valid, -1 * INT_MIN * -1 has undefined behavior). For floating types,

[Bug tree-optimization/90693] Missing popcount simplifications

2024-01-01 Thread piotrsiupa at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693 Piotr Siupa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotrsiupa at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4) > > See my previous comment? > > > > You can either write better code, or use

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4) > See my previous comment? > > You can either write better code, or use -mcmodel=large or similar, accepting > the not-so-stellar generated code

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- See my previous comment? You can either write better code, or use -mcmodel=large or similar, accepting the not-so-stellar generated code you get then.

[Bug target/108208] Bad assembly? on large LLVM source files on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (Error: operand out of range)

2024-01-01 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glaubitz at physik dot

[Bug tree-optimization/113189] `(-X * Y) * -X` can be optimized to `(X * Y) * X`

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113189 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Other examples where the negative can be removed: ``` int foo(int a) { return -a * (-a * a); } int bar(int a) { return (-a * -a) * a; } int foo1(int a, int b, int c) { return -a * (-b * c); }

[Bug tree-optimization/113189] New: `(-X * Y) * -X` can be optimized to `(X * Y) * X`

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113189 Bug ID: 113189 Summary: `(-X * Y) * -X` can be optimized to `(X * Y) * X` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization, TREE Severity:

[Bug other/113188] graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not declared in this scope

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113188 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/113188] New: graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not declared in this scope

2024-01-01 Thread eyalroz1 at gmx dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113188 Bug ID: 113188 Summary: graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not declared in this scope Product: gcc Version: 6.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/113187] `(X & C1) | C2` Simplifies to `A & (C1 | C2)` iff `(A & C2) == C2`

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113187 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/113187] New: `(X & C1) | C2` Simplifies to `A & (C1 | C2)` iff `(A & C2) == C2`

2024-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113187 Bug ID: 113187 Summary: `(X & C1) | C2` Simplifies to `A & (C1 | C2)` iff `(A & C2) == C2` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: