https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48187&action=edit
gcc10-pr94461-wip2.patch
Here is what I have right now and it passes make check-{gcc,c++-all}
RUNTESTFLAGS='--
||
Attachment #48187|0 |1
is obsolete||
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|hjl.tools at gmail dot com |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48189
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48189&action=edit
gcc10-pr94468.patch
Untested fix.
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48191&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2020-04-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48192
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48192&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94480
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94459
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Isn't the problem right now the violation of -Wpsabi?
Why would that be a problem? That warning sais that if SSE is disabled the
vector arguments (or return val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase (-O2 -msse2 -m32):
typedef unsigned V __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
union U
{
V j;
unsigned long long i __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
};
static inline __attribute__(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Inserting into vector with |[8/9/10 Regression]
|o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The numbers I got is that something grew up a little bit, something shrunk a
little bit, sometimes .debug_info grew up and .debug_loc shrunk, sometimes the
other way around, but in general it wasn't significa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
sizeof (MD) == sizeof (void *), so the clearing of the vptr in DD::~DD() when
DE::~DE() is invoked later on looks wrong.
But, without -fsanitize=vptr this isn't done.
I've added that guard in PR87095, see
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48210
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48210&action=edit
gcc10-pr94325.patch
The shot in the dark in whole patch form.
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least the #c0 testcase works in 9/10 since
r9-23
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This looks like a severe bug in emit_reduc_half for V{64QI,32HI}mode where it
handles correctly the i 512, 256, 128, 64 steps, but not the i == 32 step
needed as last for V32HImode or both the i == 16 and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94500
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48214&action=edit
gcc8-pr94500.patch
Untested fix. Richi's r265004 commit has been an optimization which
essentially causes ix86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can be also reproduced with
void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int *);
int
foo (int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h, int i, int j, int
k)
{
int z[64];
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94500
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94509
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48225&action=edit
gcc10-pr94509.patch
Untested fix.
The
if (vmode == V32QImode)
{
/* vpshufb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94511
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the testcase isn't portable, so either would need to be restricted for
ascii compatible execution charsets only, or the check would need to be
replaced with i == ('*' / 8) ? 1U << ('*' % 8) : 0
(and dea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94512
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48226
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48226&action=edit
gcc10-pr94512.patch
Untested fix.
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48230&action=edit
gcc10-pr94516.patch
Untested flag to fix the wrong-code issue. The problem was that
move2add_note_store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48230|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the optimization issue, we could have a hack like:
--- gcc/postreload.c.jj 2020-04-07 16:54:23.638924247 +0200
+++ gcc/postreload.c2020-04-07 17:06:44.055964581 +0200
@@ -328,6 +328,17 @@ reload_cse_s
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
|grokdeclarator, at |grokdeclarator, at
|cp/decl.c:12024 |cp/decl.c:12024
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94211
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression]|[8 Regression]
|-fcomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] gcc: |[8 Regression] gcc: error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Program|[8 Regression] Program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] error: |[8 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] wrong code |[8 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94291
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think they won't hurt, but we don't have a testcase that FAILs in 9.x, so the
regression is fixed.
|modulo operation|code with vector modulo
||operation since r0-117580
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
4527/* n rem d = n rem -d */
4528if (rem_flag && d < 0)
4529 {
4530d = abs_d;
4531op1 = gen_int_mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Both the tree-vect-patterns.c and tree-vect-generic.c code contains the same.
Except that the latter which handles modulo with a VECTOR_CST divisor, where we
properly divide by the absolute value, but when co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48239&action=edit
gcc10-pr94524.patch
Full untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48242
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48242&action=edit
gcc10-pr94526.patch
Untested fix (either the cselib.c or reload1.c change fixes it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You mean the bug or the proposed patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE:|[8/9 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] wrong |[8/9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The wrong-code issue is now fixed, keeping open for the missed-optimization
part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48246
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48246&action=edit
gcc10-pr94495.patch
Untested fix. This does two things during var-tracking. One is try to reuse
even more the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wonder if we couldn't let postreload.c add REG_EQUAL notes when it replaces sp
+= CONST_INT with sp = reg, like:
--- gcc/postreload.c.jj 2020-04-08 12:03:54.600398023 +0200
+++ gcc/postreload.c2020-04-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #9)
> This breaks aarch64 -mabi=ilp32.
Does https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543702.html fix that?
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94551
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm bootstrapping/regtesting that patch overnight on
{x86_64,i686,powerpc64{,le}}-linux and will commit tomorrow if it passes to
unbreak everybody.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, there is a larger patch approved for GCC11, but not for GCC10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94551
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It certainly bootstrapped/regtested fine for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In particular, fixed with r10-3575-g629387a6586a753166f5cf53d587026a34362523
I thought that commit was about store merging with non-call-expceptions, but
apparently it affects more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94495, which changed state.
Bug 94495 Summary: [10 Regression] Debug info size growth since
r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried manually:
--- cas_16_1.s~ 2020-04-14 12:19:03.0 +0200
+++ cas_16_1.s 2020-04-14 12:20:10.083098672 +0200
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
# 1 "" 2
# 1 "/usr/src/gcc/libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S"
# 53 "/u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll handle it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48269&action=edit
gcc10-pr93053.patch
So how about this (tested just that when preprocessing + assembling with
-DHAVE_AS_LSE and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or, if the .macro COMMENT hack is too ugly, we could tweak it like:
#ifdef HAVE_AS_LSE
# define LDOP glue4(LDNM, A, L, S) s(0), s(0), [x1]
#else
# define LDOP .inst 0x38200020 + OPN + B + N
#endif
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
error: Only one unified_shared_memory clause can appear on a requires directive
in a single translation unit
is incorrect, dunno where they took it from.
The same clause can't appear multiple times on the sam
||2020-04-14
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48272&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94571
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> I think that won't handle
>
> auto x(1), [e,f] = test2;
>
> where we should also say what clang says (or at least give inform()).
That gives
error: expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94587
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, clang defaults to -ffp-contract=on which is like =fast (except when you
use FP_CONTRACT pragma).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Since Richard's change, assign_parm_data_one has the arg member with
function_arg_info type, and that class has a user-provided default constructor.
Perhaps for old GCC we could instead of
*data = assign_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
601 - 700 of 40464 matches
Mail list logo
