https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu ---
I still see 32-bit test hang at random on Skylake server:
(gdb) bt
#0 0xf7fc655d in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0xf7bac46b in syscall () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x0804995d in std::__detail::__platform_wait (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89252
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 89252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97541
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE with |[11/12 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101742
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761
Bug ID: 101761
Summary: Random hang with 29_atomics/atomic_ref/wait_notify.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #39)
> Please open a new bugreport, failures in Comment 37 and Comment 38 have
> nothing with r7-1112-gbeed3701c796842abbfb27d7484b35bd82818740 which was
> fully reverted.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
It is fixed by r12-2733.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
For some reason,
-march=x86-64 -mx32
and
-march=x86-64 -m32 -mfpmath=sse
won't vectorize the loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is the equivalent C code:
---
#include
#define loop_t uint32_t
#define idx_t uint32_t
void loop(double * const __restrict__ dst,
double const * const __restrict__ src,
idx_t const *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101809
Bug ID: 101809
Summary: emulated gather capability doesn't support 32-bit
target
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51270|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804
Bug ID: 101804
Summary: float_vector_all_ones_operand should be used more
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #2)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > That file is FreeBSD specific. Can you use a local patch to force
> > /usr/include/md5.h, like
> >
> > #include_next
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Another possibility is to add a configure test to locate the system
and include it instead of .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102677
Bug ID: 102677
Summary: Extra testsuite failures with glibc 2.34
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102669
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51559|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> functionality?
Like this?
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc?
>
> It does when gcc is configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
192t.thread3 has
if (in_16(D) != 0B)
goto ; [70.00%]
else
goto ; [30.00%]
193t.dom3 removed "if (in_16(D) != 0B)".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A pointer is known to non-null only if we know where the pointer is
pointing to. Since the null field is initialized to 0, we need to
check both null and anything. This works on the test case:
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51618=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51624 [details]
> Allow EDGE_EH edges to be processed
>
> range_on_edge needs to continue processing EDGE_EH..
> See if this fixes all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102836
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> It turns out that this happens because 32-bit Solaris/x86 only guarantees
> 4-byte stack alignment following the i386 psABI, so defaults to
> -mstackrealign.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
Bug ID: 102840
Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #1)
> I believe this test case is poorly written, and not correctly testing the
> original issue in PR target/22076 which concerned suboptimal moving of
> arguments via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51618|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (in_16(D) != 0B)
With known ranges
in_16(D): const unsigned char * [1B, +INF]
1B for lower bound is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Vectorizer has
if (DR_PTR_INFO (dr)
&& TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
&& !SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base))
vect_duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr_base, dr_info);
This fixes the crash.
diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Source has
__attribute__((__noipa__))
void BUF_reverse (unsigned char *out, const unsigned char *in, size_t size)
{
size_t i;
if (in)
{
out += size - 1;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102491
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
:1-1 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes.
2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails.
3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails.
4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> play?
-fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug.
> If so, you could try to narrow it down to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o.
2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a.
3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a
4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
Bug ID: 102632
Summary: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51558|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #22)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > Created attachment 51559 [details]
> > The new v3 patch
> >
> > The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
>
> v3? We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #24)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> > I renamed the commit title. The new v3 is the v6 + fixes.
>
> Got it. Still no issues.
Can you get some performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102562
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP
/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-32bit-gitlab-native/build-i686-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++8/../../xg++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
Bug ID: 102571
Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/atomic-21.c
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ cat y.c
#include
_Atomic int v;
unsigned int
foo ()
{
return atomic_fetch_or_explicit (, 1, memory_order_relaxed) & 1;
}
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ make y.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51536=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Can we convert
_1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (, 1, 0);
_2 = (int) _1;
_5 = _2 & 1;
to
_1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (, 1, 0);
_2 = _1 & 1;
_5 = (int) _2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51536|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51543|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51549|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51551|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51556|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 51556 [details]
> > The v5 patch
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> >
> > 1. Check SSA_NAME before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> I wanted to look at #c20, but at least my i9-7960X for e.g. lock; btsl $65,
> var
> acts the same as lock; btsl $1, var rather than lock; btsl $1, var+8,
> so maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
Bug ID: 102625
Summary: [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
before and after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102080
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
> > before and after.
>
> Assembly codes is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 __sanitizer::CheckFailed (
file=0xf7b17af4
"/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp",
line=46,
cond=0xf7b17ac0 "((allocated_for_dlsym)) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103466
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I'd say we should patch away locally the initial v prefixes until the merge
> is done.
The patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
Bug ID: 103547
Summary: [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
r12-5778 builds now. It has happened once before. I will leave it open
until we find out exactly what is going on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102080
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 42444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42444
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245
Bug 57245 depends on bug 103735, which changed state.
Bug 103735 Summary: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures by
r12-4764
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52055=edit
Good and bad asm
--- good.s 2021-12-24 11:24:26.531365375 -0800
+++ bad.s 2021-12-24 11:24:30.769344666 -0800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 52055 [details]
> Good and bad asm
>
> --- good.s2021-12-24 11:24:26.531365375 -0800
> +++ bad.s 2021-12-24 11:24:30.769344666 -0800
> @@ -10,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Before
(insn 8 5 70 2 (set (reg:SI 1 dx [92])
(const_int 714200473 [0x2a91d599]))
"/export/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-gcc-test/gcc/ada/sem_type.adb":2563:7 70
{*movsi_internal}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
sem_type.adb is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
The v3 patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587364.html
401 - 500 of 1125 matches
Mail list logo
