[Bug tree-optimization/97315] [11 Regression] ICE in choose_value, at gimple-ssa-evrp.c:282 since r11-3690-gebc77ce3a4c70730b4e38d68f88693eadbdc8712

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 7, 2020 5:35:02 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315 > >--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod --- >(In reply to David

[Bug tree-optimization/97307] Optimization for pure vs. const function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 7, 2020 5:30:14 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307 > >Jakub Jelinek changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug target/97194] optimize vector element set/extract at variable position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194 > > --- Comment #20 from Hongtao.liu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 16, 2020 4:17:43 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 > >--- Comment #17 from Andrew Macleod --- >(In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 > > --- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod --- > Well it seems far more incorrect that

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 16, 2020 5:46:28 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 > >--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod --- >(In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 20, 2020 4:16:37 PM GMT+02:00, "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 > >--- Comment #32 from Peter Bergner --- >(In reply to Richard

[Bug middle-end/64928] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Inordinate cpu time and memory usage in "phase opt and generate" with -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 29 Sep 2020, lucier at math dot purdue.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928 > > --- Comment #32 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu --- > I don't know

[Bug target/97194] optimize vector element set/extract at variable position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 28 Sep 2020, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194 > > --- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug target/97207] [nvptx, build] nvptx.c:3539:38: error: no matching function for call to ‘swap(bracket_vec_t&, bracket_vec_t&)’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207 > > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug target/96789] x264: sub4x4_dct() improves when vectorization is disabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 27, 2020 4:56:43 AM GMT+02:00, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 > >--- Comment #22 from Hongtao.liu --- >>One of my workmates

[Bug ipa/97264] [11 Regression] -fpa-modref breaks va_arg on glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97264 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97264 > > --- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich --- > Oh, that makes sense. > > > void

[Bug target/97521] [11 Regression] wrong code with -mno-sse2 since r11-3394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97521 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97521 > > Hongtao.liu changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug target/97521] [11 Regression] wrong code with -mno-sse2 since r11-3394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97521 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97521 > > --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- > We don't necessarily need to make it user

[Bug tree-optimization/97579] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:201 since r11-4123-g128f43cf679e5156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579 > > --- Comment #2 from Martin Li?ka --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- > Thanks for reporting this. > >

[Bug tree-optimization/98542] Redundant loads in vectorised loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542 > > --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > With the follow-on

[Bug tree-optimization/22326] promotions (from float to double) are not removed when they should be able to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 > > --- Comment #14 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to luoxhu from

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger --- > (In reply to SRINATH

[Bug libstdc++/98001] ext/stdio_filebuf/char/79820.cc is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98001 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 26 Nov 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98001 > > Jonathan Wakely changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 > > Christophe Lyon changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/98209] [8/9/10/11 Regression] printf failed with O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209 > > --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- > Started with r8-2658-g9b25e12d2d940a61.

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> --- > (In reply to

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 49727 > -->

[Bug c/97172] [11 Regression] ICE: tree code ‘ssa_name’ is not supported in LTO streams since r11-3303-g6450f07388f9fe57

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172 > > --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka --- > >

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10 Regression] Full ABI information missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > Alexandre Oliva changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/96245] Failure to optimize arithmetic pattern in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 14, 2020 12:19:32 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245 > >--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- >Looking at godbolt and

[Bug tree-optimization/98254] Failure to optimize simple pattern for __builtin_convertvector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98254 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 12, 2020 7:27:01 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98254 > >Jakub Jelinek changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/98254] Failure to optimize simple pattern for __builtin_convertvector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98254 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 12, 2020 8:36:07 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98254 > >--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- >(In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/22326] promotions (from float to double) are not removed when they should be able to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 11, 2020 6:51:05 PM GMT+01:00, "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 > >--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool --- >Yes, that is

[Bug middle-end/64711] Unconsistency with -fnon-call-exceptions when used along inline and ipa optimizations and memmov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711 > > --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- > > The issue with clearing nothrow is

[Bug target/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, bunk at stusta dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 > > --- Comment #7 from Adrian Bunk --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > >

[Bug tree-optimization/85315] missed range optimisation opportunity for derefences where index must be 0 or otherwise constrained

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 18, 2020 3:55:44 PM GMT+01:00, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315 > >--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod --- >Maybe I'm a little

[Bug target/97535] [9/10 Regression] On AArch64 memcpy expansion cannot handle length > 32-bit signed int max

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535 > > Tamar Christina changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/22326] promotions (from float to double) are not removed when they should be able to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 > > --- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Even we could optimize fabs

[Bug middle-end/64711] Unconsistency with -fnon-call-exceptions when used along inline and ipa optimizations and memmov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711 > > --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > > as the comments says the check isn't

[Bug testsuite/97688] check_vect doesn't detect AVX2 on zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97688 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 3 Nov 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97688 > > --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- > FWIW, x86 source in gcc testsuite should be

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug middle-end/97656] Specify that there is no address arithmetic on a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug tree-optimization/97623] [9/10/11 Regression] Extremely slow O2 compile (>>O(n^2))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, wsnyder at wsnyder dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623 > > --- Comment #10 from Wilson Snyder --- > Running -O2 -fno-code-hoisting

[Bug testsuite/90806] Warray-bounds-2.c fail on cross-aarch64 on RH6 host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806 > > --- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou --- > Richard, any objection to me

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 8, 2021 3:07:48 PM GMT+01:00, "mar...@mpa-garching.mpg.de" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 > >--- Comment #22 from Martin Reinecke --- >Brilliant, thank

[Bug tree-optimization/98598] Missed opportunity to optimize dependent loads in loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 > > --- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu > --- > Loop distribution can

[Bug tree-optimization/98598] Missed opportunity to optimize dependent loads in loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 9 Jan 2021, jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 > > --- Comment #7 from Jiangning Liu > --- > (In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/98598] Missed opportunity to optimize dependent loads in loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 9, 2021 4:17:17 AM GMT+01:00, "jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598 > >--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu com> --- >> It

[Bug tree-optimization/98674] [10/11 Regression] vectorizer failed for compilation time alias

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98674 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98674 > > --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug c++/97474] [8/9/10/11 Regression] produces wrong code with references to another field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474 > > --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- > Yeah, adding restrict there is just

[Bug ipa/98834] [10/11 Regression] Code path incorrectly determined to be unreachable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834 > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Started with

[Bug testsuite/90806] Warray-bounds-2.c fail on cross-aarch64 on RH6 host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806 > > --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Since -9223372036854775808 is

[Bug tree-optimization/98464] [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in tree_nop_conversion_p, at tree.c:12825 by r11-4637

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464 > > --- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > >

[Bug tree-optimization/98516] [11 Regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3823-g126ed72b9f48f853

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98516 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, mar...@mpa-garching.mpg.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98516 > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Reinecke --- > Thanks, this fixes the reduced test

[Bug tree-optimization/98854] [11 Regression] cray benchmark is about 15% slower since r11-4428-g4a369d199bf2f34e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854 > > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- > > I used -O3 but -O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize

[Bug tree-optimization/80198] [8/9/10/11 Regression] does not vectorize generic inplace integer operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198 > > --- Comment #20 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> --- > (In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/98854] [11 Regression] cray benchmark is about 15% slower since r11-4428-g4a369d199bf2f34e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854 > > --- Comment #5 from Martin Li?ka --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/98848] [9/10/11 regression] vectorizer failed to reduce max pattern since r9-1590

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So what about punting if the lhs of the

[Bug ipa/98594] [11 Regression] IPA modref codegen bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98594 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98594 > > --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- > The initialization is removed by dse1 pass.

[Bug tree-optimization/98848] [9/10/11 regression] vectorizer failed to reduce max pattern since r9-1590

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848 > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Alternatively, couldn't we support

[Bug tree-optimization/98868] [8/9/10/11 Regression] polyhedron rnflow.f90 regression since r8-2555-g344be1fd47d7d64e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98868 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98868 > > --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- > It's likely about a small loop alignment: >

[Bug middle-end/98209] [8/9/10/11 Regression] printf failed with O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/98863] WRF with LTO consumes a lot of memory in split2 pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863 > > --- Comment #16 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/100934] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code at -O3 during unrolling since r9-6299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100934 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Jun 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100934 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > > Alexander Grund changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > > --- Comment #9 from Alexander Grund --- > > Note that when the union type

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > > --- Comment #13 from Alexander Grund --- > > But what you can see is that

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 > > --- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski --- > * minmax_replacement: has some handling

[Bug middle-end/32667] block copy with exact overlap is expanded as memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Jun 2021, public at timruffing dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667 > > Tim Ruffing changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/97770] [ICELAKE]suboptimal vectorization for vpopcntw/b/q

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97770 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Jun 2021, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97770 > > --- Comment #17 from Hongtao.liu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101159] [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since r12-1707-ge08a125b208e717f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101159 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Jun 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101159 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > > --- Comment #3 from Alexander Grund --- > You are right, it actually seems

[Bug middle-end/101062] [10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with "-O2 -fno-toplevel-reorder -frename-registers"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062 > > --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 15, 2021 4:21:12 PM GMT+02:00, "alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > >--- Comment #5 from Alexander Grund --- >So am I right

[Bug tree-optimization/101061] tree-vrp misoptimization on skylake+ using union-based aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 15, 2021 4:27:37 PM GMT+02:00, "alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061 > >--- Comment #6 from Alexander Grund --- >Oh and for

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 May 2021, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #14 from bin cheng --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug c++/100468] set_up_extended_ref_temp via extend_ref_init_temps_1 drops TREE_ADDRESSABLE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 7 May 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/100582] vectorize failed to generate VEC_COND_EXPR for v32qi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100582 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 May 2021, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100582 > > --- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug ipa/100513] [10/11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in lookup_page_table_entry) for bootstrap-O3 since r11-6411-gae99b315ba5b9e1c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100513 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 May 2021, guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100513 > > --- Comment #21 from Jiu Fu Guo --- > When build the go on trunk with the

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 19 May 2021, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger --- > Hi Srinath, > > when we add new

[Bug target/97205] arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and GCC-10 for _Generic feature.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 20 May 2021, sripar01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205 > > --- Comment #23 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 May 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez --- > I have an upcoming patchset that

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 May 2021, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez --- > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:34 AM

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 May 2021, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 > > --- Comment #28 from Andrew Macleod --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from

[Bug c++/100731] [11/12 Regression] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 May 2021, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 > > --- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/100794] suboptimal code due to missing pre2 when vectorization fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100794 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 May 2021, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100794 > > --- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)

[Bug tree-optimization/100794] suboptimal code due to missing pre2 when vectorization fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100794 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 May 2021, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100794 > > --- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/98845] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 2 and 23 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.) since r6-528-g465770e43996a132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 May 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845 > > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- > Fixed on master with

[Bug tree-optimization/101187] enhancement for vector logic right shift with constant bigger than element precision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101187 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101187 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/100778] [11 Regression] Get SIGFPE on simple test with -fpe-trap=invalid and SLP vectorization ON, with gfortran 11.1.0 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 2 Jul 2021, gabrielle.hugo at cern dot ch wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778 > > --- Comment #11 from Gabrielle Hugo --- > Awesome, thanks a lot Richard! >

[Bug middle-end/101294] [12 Regression] ICE: in maybe_legitimize_operand, at optabs.c:7614 with -mavx since r12-1958-gedafb35bdadf309e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 2, 2021 4:03:34 PM GMT+02:00, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294 > >--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- >This works: > >diff --git

[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 9 Jul 2021, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 > > --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Eric, is it possible to write an

[Bug tree-optimization/101419] [9/10/11/12 Regression] collapsing memset() calls can break __builtin_object_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 > > --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I agree about most of the passes you

[Bug tree-optimization/101419] [9/10/11/12 Regression] collapsing memset() calls can break __builtin_object_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/101419] [9/10/11/12 Regression] collapsing memset() calls can break __builtin_object_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419 > > --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from

[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 10, 2021 7:13:47 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 > >--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de de> --- >On July 9,

[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 9, 2021 9:43:52 PM GMT+02:00, "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 > >--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- >Or maybe I

[Bug tree-optimization/94092] Code size and performance degradations after -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns was enabled at -O[2s]+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, law at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092 > > Jeffrey A. Law changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/100173] telecom/viterb00data_1 has 16.92% regression compared O2 -ftree-vectorize -fvect-cost-model=very-cheap to O2 on CLX/ICX, 9% regression on znver3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 29 Apr 2021, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173 > > --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > > > but yes, cselim will also sink the

[Bug tree-optimization/94589] Optimize (i<=>0)>0 to i>0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 29 Apr 2021, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589 > > --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- > Some key steps in the optimization: > PRE

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 4 May 2021, vgupta at synopsys dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 > > --- Comment #18 from Vineet Gupta --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >