[Bug tree-optimization/56799] Runfail after r197060+r197082.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56799 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/56900] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp87.c scan-tree-dump vrp2 Folded into: if.*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/56900] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp87.c scan-tree-dump vrp2 Folded into: if.*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-04-30 19:20:19 UTC --- It looks like range_fits_type_p may not be handling overflows correctly. Investigating.

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-05-01 05:13:38 UTC --- __attribute__ ((noinline)) foo(short unsigned int *p1, short unsigned int *p2) { short unsigned int x1, x4; int x2, x3, x5, x6; unsigned int x7

[Bug tree-optimization/57144] [4.9 regression] mpfr miscompiled after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57144 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law

[Bug tree-optimization/57144] [4.9 regression] mpfr miscompiled after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57144 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/57144] [4.9 regression] mpfr miscompiled after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57144 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-05-03 16:37:34 UTC --- I've checked in a patch to the trunk which should fix this problem. If you could verify on ia64 it would be greatly appreciated.

[Bug rtl-optimization/57159] Latent bug in RTL GCSE/PRE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57159 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-05-07 04:25:27 UTC --- Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to make the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their paces

[Bug rtl-optimization/40761] IRA memory hog for insanely nested loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug plugins/53126] gcc-4.7.0 error gcc-ar: Cannot find plugin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2012-05-02 20:15:23 UTC --- This code should generally follow the logic from gcc.c. We may not need to support all the environment variables that gcc.c handles. But for those we do need

[Bug rtl-optimization/53252] New: Missed shrink wrapping opportunity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53252 Bug #: 53252 Summary: Missed shrink wrapping opportunity Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/53253] New: Missed opportunity to inline memcmp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53253 Bug #: 53253 Summary: Missed opportunity to inline memcmp Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/53254] New: Missed opportunity to aggregate consecutive stores into single larger store

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53254 Bug #: 53254 Summary: Missed opportunity to aggregate consecutive stores into single larger store Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/57144] [4.9 regression] mpfr miscompiled after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57144 Bug 57144 depends on bug 57124, which changed state. Bug 57124 Summary: 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/57660] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-28.c scan-tree-dump-times forwprop1 Replaced 8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug tree-optimization/57660] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-28.c scan-tree-dump-times forwprop1 Replaced 8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- We've got two choices here. First is to somehow make the number of replacements we look for be conditional on the target. For targets with an appropriate branch cost (such as m68K

[Bug tree-optimization/57660] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-28.c scan-tree-dump-times forwprop1 Replaced 8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57805] Wasted work in write_roots()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57805 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/57810] Wasted work in validate_const_int()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57810 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57806] Wasted work in propagate_nothrow()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57806 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57790] Wasted work in can_move_insns_across()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57790 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57809] Wasted work in omega_eliminate_red()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57809 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57803] Wasted work in gfc_build_dummy_array_decl()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57803 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57811] Wasted work in find_reloads()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57811 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57782] Wasted work in remove_path()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57782 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/57787] Wasted work in ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p() and ix86_pad_returns()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57787 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57800] Wasted work in gfc_match_call()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57800 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57801] Wasted work in resolve_variable()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57801 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57791] Wasted work in gfc_check_pointer_assign()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57791 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57802] Wasted work in set_loop_bounds()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57802 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57804] Wasted work in gfc_trans_transfer()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57804 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/58206] [4.9 Regression] AIX bootstrap broken

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58206 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Zhengong's testcase fails for me, so I'll work with that first.

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- I've found a minor error in the tree-ssa-threadedge.c changes. I can easily see how it affects Zhengong's testcase and I can speculate how it might be triggering the ia64 failure. I'm

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Jan's patch papers over the problem of incorrect initialization of found. I expect to be able to run through the formalities necessary to install the fix tonight. Reverting until I

[Bug tree-optimization/58342] ICE in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58342 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- *** Bug 58342 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- I'm seeing ia64 fail with an insn does not match constraints failure when the stage2 compiler builds the stage2 C++ runtime. And that's *with* the fix I checked in last night

[Bug tree-optimization/58343] [4.9 Regression] ICE in dfs_enumerate_from, at cfganal.c:1036

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58343 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Zhendong, Thanks for the testcase. What's happening here is the code to allow threading through a simple forwarder block exposes an opportunity to build a significantly deeper jump

[Bug tree-optimization/58343] [4.9 Regression] ICE in dfs_enumerate_from, at cfganal.c:1036

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58343 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/58373] [4.9 Regression] g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58373 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug tree-optimization/58380] [4.9 Regression] ice in fold_comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58380 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug tree-optimization/58380] [4.9 Regression] ice in fold_comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58380 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- 202296 doesn't change anything WRT sequencing of operations; it merely allows the threader to dive a bit deeper into the CFG to determine a final target for a jump threading opportunity

[Bug tree-optimization/58380] [4.9 Regression] ice in fold_comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58380 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- This looks like slightly different variant of 58343 where we thread through a loop header when we really didn't want to. I haven't tracked it through to the ICE, but from looking

[Bug tree-optimization/58380] [4.9 Regression] ice in fold_comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58380 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Fixed on trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/58342] ICE in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58342 Bug 58342 depends on bug 58340, which changed state. Bug 58340 Summary: [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Obviously in a bootstrap comparison failure we have a situation where the compiler has mis-compiled itself or something similar. Ultimately I need to be able to reproduce the failure

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Andreas, ia64 is bootstrapping fine for me. I did one immediately before installing the patch to fix this PR and just did another one (r202530 of the trunk on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Looks like make_range_step is getting miscompiled. Still trying to figure out how/why.

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- I know what's happening here. It's obscure and quite nasty. We have a jump threading opportunity which requires threading through a joiner block. The jump thread leaving one edge

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- I'll also note that the plan for the isolated paths that exhibit undefined behaviour is to have them trap/abort at the statement which triggers the undefined behaviour. The original

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- It's the action of executing the code with undefined behaviour which is the trigger. ie, if you don't execute the code, then it has no effect on the defined/undefined state

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- The optimization came out of building additional warnings for GCC. It's safe to assume that there'll be an option to enable a warning that the compiler was able to identify and isolate

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 --- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- I think an option to eliminate the path entire like the first iteration of the change did could be easily added later. In fact it would be fairly easy to add. Basically we'd arrange

[Bug c/58400] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not satisfy its constraints at fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'mb_free_blocks':

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kazu at gcc dot

[Bug c/58400] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not satisfy its constraints at fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'mb_free_blocks':

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Reduced testcase: static __inline__ __attribute__((always_inline)) __attribute__((no_instrument_function)) int test_bit(int nr, const unsigned long* addr) { return (*((volatile unsigned

[Bug c/58400] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not satisfy its constraints at fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'mb_free_blocks':

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c/58401] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not satisfy its constraints at fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c: In function 'dlm_query_join_handler'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58401 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/58400] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not satisfy its constraints at fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'mb_free_blocks':

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- *** Bug 58401 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/58256] gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58256 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/55860] Turn segmented iteration into nested loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug tree-optimization/58431] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 32-bit mode)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58431 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/58342] ICE in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58342 Bug 58342 depends on bug 58340, which changed state. Bug 58340 Summary: [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

[Bug middle-end/58418] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 32-bit mode)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58418 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- *** Bug 58431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/58431] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 32-bit mode)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58431 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Jakub, That doesn't make *any* sense. r202489 simply *avoids* doing any jump threading in certain cases. If that change is indeed the trigger, then the root cause is going

[Bug tree-optimization/58380] [4.9 Regression] ice in fold_comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58380 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/58387] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/47521] Unnecessary usage of edx register

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47521 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/35455] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] h8300: internal compiler error: in compute_frame_pointer_to_fb_displacement, at dwarf2out.c:10984

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35455 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at kernel

[Bug debug/39766] internal compiler error: in compute_frame_pointer_to_fb_displacement, at dwarf2out.c:12179

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39766 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794 Bug 19794 depends on bug 23622, which changed state. Bug 23622 Summary: Dom jump threading at -O1 confuses branch prediction http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23622 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/23622] Dom jump threading at -O1 confuses branch prediction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23622 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/55860] Turn segmented iteration into nested loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- The other issue here is the loop header which looks like: bb4: # iii_16 = PHI iii_12(8), 0(3) # jkl_17 = PHI jkl_4(8), 0(3) L1: if (m_8(D) iii_16) goto bb 5; else goto bb 6

[Bug tree-optimization/55860] Turn segmented iteration into nested loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- BTW, I did look at walking up the CFG to discover edge equivalences we could add to our tables. We don't have access to the path through the dominator tree that we've followed, so I had

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- James. Look in the .ldist dump. In particular look at that memset call. We're writing off the end of the structure. Now to walk backwards and figure out why :-)

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Andrew. Yes it does. I've never looked at the ldist code, but the dump seems a bit strange: Analyzing # of iterations of loop 3 exit condition [1, + , 1](no_overflow) != 96 bounds

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pthaugen at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/58554] [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state. Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state. Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/58554] [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Yes, threading is rotating the loop in interesting ways -- I was going to look at that independently of the correctness issue. One of the things I've noticed as I've been laying down

[Bug tree-optimization/58553] New fail in PASS-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memcpy-2.c execution on arm and aarch64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Re: Not creating loops with multiple entries, no doubt that's bad. It would be nice however, to expose loop nesting. ie, prior to threading it looks like one bug fugly loop. A bit

[Bug tree-optimization/61757] [4.10 Regression] genmodes failure with enable-checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug tree-optimization/61757] [4.10 Regression] genmodes failure with enable-checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757 --- Comment #32 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- No, we don't have that information available in any reasonable form. That's one of the things I need to investigate. One of the possibilities is to flip things on their side a bit

[Bug tree-optimization/22401] DOM messes up the profiling info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22401 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug target/62025] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl sha512.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug target/62025] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl sha512.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- It's late and I need to catch some zzzs. But as I hinted in my prior update, I think we may chasing something latent. I would recommend looking very closely at r204497, which my

[Bug target/62025] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl sha512.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- More eyes never hurt :-) This pair is going to bed.

[Bug target/62025] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl sha512.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025 --- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- In reference to c#12. I think the ivopts changes are just setting up the situation that is mis-handled later. I'd gotten as far as seeing the +128 increment moving in the scheduler

[Bug middle-end/35545] tracer pass is run too late

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- This feels like the kind of situation where I've always wanted a pass to be able to say something like I've done some set of transformations, schedule the appropriate cleanup passes

[Bug tree-optimization/63302] [4.9 Regression] Code with 64-bit long long constants is miscompiled on 32-bit host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >