https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109990
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102264
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114414
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 108278, which changed state.
Bug 108278 Summary: [13/14 Regression] runtime error with -O1 -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108278
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108278
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107058
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101463
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111305
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110285
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113742
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89835
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks for that info Edwin -- my tester flagged them too and mentally I'd
figured it was most likely the combiner change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113384
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
|RESOLVED
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Should be fixed on the trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112871
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113001
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Bug 84402 depends on bug 113575, which changed state.
Bug 113575 Summary: [14 Regression] memory hog building insn-opinit.o
(i686-linux-gnu -> riscv64-linux-gnu)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Jakub's patch on the trunk.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100523
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110942
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110841
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
|RESOLVED
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Greg's patch on the trunk. No current plans to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114221
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112871
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113001
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 112871 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, sorry. I should have removed the 15 tag.
|NEW
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-25
Target|riscv |riscv,fr30
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea. I think my first one in this space was in the mid 90s on the PA. Sigh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just one high level note. Nobody is ever going to do something like
"-ftree-ter" without having one of the optimization levels on. It's an option
combination that just doesn't make sense.
But we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, I would think we want to avoid anything marked as frame related.
Otherwise we have to go back and fixup the CFI nodes and such.
Eric, do you want to handle the final bootstrap+regression test? Or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's not the way we do things. And my bootstraps on m68k are working fine.
Last one was 6 days ago.
This needs to be debugged by someone with the time/interest on the m68k.
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A few targets (nds32be-elf, nds32le-elf, avr-elf) have started failing a few
tests after recent aliasing changes:
Tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Agh. I was looking in the main config directory, not common/config. So it all
makes sense now.
So if we go back to your original analysis, I think we can say things are
behaving correctly and we just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
What still doesn't make sense is why nds32 would be special here. It doesn't
do anything special with flag_delete_null_pointer_checks and I don't think it
uses any of the address space hooks. So why does
at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-13
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Those look worse than the original, so I don't think we want to blindly change
the expected output. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115478
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Roger, that looks pretty reasonable. I suspect we're going to need to do
something similar for the sh port which seems to be affected negatively as
well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And to be clearer, if you look at the two assembly snippets:
The problem is about
0: 814dsrlia0,a0,0x13
2: 8905andia0,a0,1
4: e501
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114996
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Seger, please give some suggestions. At least for the riscv case, I don't see
a path forward.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's going to be a uarch issue if the slli/bltz is slower.
||2024-06-16
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, the xiangshan-nanhu scheduler model needs some serious work. The generic
RISC-V code will trigger an ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115387
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115404
Bug 115404 depends on bug 115387, which changed state.
Bug 115387 Summary: [15 regression] ICE in iovsprintf.c since
r15-1081-ge14afbe2d1c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115387
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113362
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
||13.1.1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-16
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law
1101 - 1193 of 1193 matches
Mail list logo