https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97292
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> > With just -Ofast the benchmark doesn't seem to ever terminate until it is
> > eventually killed.
> >
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97292
Bug ID: 97292
Summary: [11 Regression] dealII from SPECCPU 2016 no longer
terminates after
g:c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97224
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Cheers, thanks Mark!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97224
Bug ID: 97224
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] SPECCPU 2006 Gamess fails to
build after g:e5a76af3a2f3324efc60b4b2778ffb29d5c377bc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Yeah, the overflow in the signed type is causing the number of instructions
guard to fail.
I'll submit a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97574
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Submitted a patch to get the driver to stop mangling nul so it makes it easier
for binutils to detect.
That said Jonathan is right in that there's still a binutils bug here. I had
forgotten that even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97574
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97224
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
@Martin I believe this was re-opened as the patch was reverted on master but
was still pending reverts on the release branches.
@Mark I assume you committed the reverts to the branches too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|tamar.christina at arm dot com |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Summary|ice during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 98264, which changed state.
Bug 98264 Summary: [11 Regression] ice during linear_loads_p since
r11-5969-g3ed472af6bc9f83b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Unfortunately I can still reproduce this with 483.xalancbmk on spec2006.
It seems to indeed happen only with -flto so I have no idea how to reduce it..
As of g:8833eab4461b4b7050f06a231c3311cc1fa87523 I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97769
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks Richi!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97911
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97911
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks Jakub, that patch does seem to fix the AArch64 build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmm indeed. I only saw it was doing unsigned arithmetic. I'll patch that one
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97809
Bug ID: 97809
Summary: [11 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap broken, ICE when
building mpf after
g:86cca5cc14602814b98e55aae313fbe237af1b04
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97809
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97806
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97769
Bug ID: 97769
Summary: [11 Regression] vectorizer ICE when building perlbench
in SPECCPU 2017
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97769
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
This seems to go away if you initialize a in `int a`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] On |[9/10 Regression] On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
Bug ID: 98782
Summary: IRA artificially creating spills due to BB frequencies
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98928
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98928
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmm looks like the SLP unwinding code is accidentally cancelling a pattern it
shouldn't have. Checking why...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98928
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 98928, which changed state.
Bug 98928 Summary: [11 regression] ICE when build 638.imagick_s since
r11-5969-g3ed472af6bc9f83b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98928
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101028
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100638
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100638
Bug ID: 100638
Summary: FP16 vector compare missed optimization on AArch64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100614
Bug ID: 100614
Summary: Missing mpfr 4 tarballs
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Bootstrap turns on -Werror so the warning generated in
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c at aarch64_simd_lane_bounds for the use of `%K`
becomes fatal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
yeah, the ICEs don't make sense to me either, let me see if I can debug one of
them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
yes revering r12-2132 does indeed fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Bug ID: 101372
Summary: [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling
gcc/cp/module.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326
Bug ID: 101326
Summary: std::optional returns forced through stack
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
last example for x86 should have been
foo():# @foo()
xor eax, eax
mov dl, 1
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Just an update on what I know so far.
There seems to be no symmetry between the growth of the memory costs vs that of
the caller saved registers.
In the case of the memory costs, the actual memory cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
> I can reproduce it. You likely named the file x.f90 (and not x.f). Please try
> that..
Aha.. Fortran such a mystery :)
> Do you want me to bisect that?
No, they'll all point to the commit which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
@Arseny,
Thanks for reporting these.
I wonder if whatever you're compiling is open source. I'd love to fix some of
these cases properly in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Btw, the following also works as a fix but obviously I'm not in a position
> to fully evaluate this. That said, hybrid SLP detection was rewritten during
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #10)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> > I wonder if whatever you're compiling is open source. I'd love to fix some
> > of these cases properly in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99825
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99825
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99825
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed. I will have a look.
It's interesting since the cost model needs to be disabled to reproduce it.
It looks like when it is one of the load nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #15)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #10)
> > > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99220
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99149
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99220
Bug ID: 99220
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE during vectorization when multiple
instances do the same calculation but have different
num lanes
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100048
Bug ID: 100048
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Wrongful CSE'ing of SVE predicates.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100048
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100048
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Correction, it's CSE'd into
foo:
pfalse p1.b
ptrue p0.d, all
trn1p0.d, p0.d, p1.d
faddv h0, p0, z0.h
str h0, [x0]
str h0, [x0, 2]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to ptomsich from comment #6)
> With the current master, the test case generates (with -mcpu=neoverse-n1):
> which contrasts with LLVM13 (with -mcpu=neoverse-n1):
>
> test_slp:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100048
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99149
Bug ID: 99149
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE during vectorization when shared
trees contain different complex patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|12.0
--- Comment #5 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101197
--- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> Waiting for Tamara's test-case now.
> Btw. can you please share a pointer to the Github repsitory?
Sure, it's this project and this particular call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101197
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Shouldn't that be a different PR with details? I mean, this PR is that we
> should expand shorter memmove inline even if the regions do overlap.
Sure, I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101197
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|x86_64-linux-gnu|x86_64-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101197
--- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > > Shouldn't that be a different PR with details? I mean, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101197
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #12)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #10)
> > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9)
> > > > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102188
Bug ID: 102188
Summary: Over widening detection doesn't work when no range
information
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218
Bug ID: 102218
Summary: 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor
memory model on AArch64 and Arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101457
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> On x86_64 the testcase is optimized to the following now:
> not sure how we conclude that 'n' is not written to anywhere. The issue
> persists even when I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101842
Bug ID: 101842
Summary: Vectorizer doesn't vectorize when loop bound depends
on two independent variables that are unknown
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101842
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> OK, so with a hack like the following we vectorize the BB as
>
> vect__1.10_62 = MEM [(float *)p_34];
> vect_powmult_9.11_61 = vect__1.10_62 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101842
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > OK, so with a hack like the following we vectorize the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
And yes the same semantics apply to 'i', but if I read it right the patch in
r12-2523 is tracking variables that are read but never written to. So 'i'
escaped the same issue because it's written to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91598
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95967
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91598
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #11)
> > Can this issue be closed? all inline assembly have been removed from
> > arm_neon.h but backporting these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95964
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95962
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91753
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47562
Bug 47562 depends on bug 91753, which changed state.
Bug 91753 Summary: Bad register allocation of multi-register types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91753
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95958
Bug 95958 depends on bug 91753, which changed state.
Bug 91753 Summary: Bad register allocation of multi-register types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91753
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
Bug 98877 depends on bug 91753, which changed state.
Bug 91753 Summary: Bad register allocation of multi-register types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91753
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
Bug ID: 102448
Summary: [12 Regression] wrong codegen in gcc in spec2017 since
24f99147b9264f8f7d9cfb2fa6bd431edfa252d2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 733 matches
Mail list logo
