[Bug bootstrap/69709] [6 Regression] profiled bootstrap error on s390x-linux-gnu with r233194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69709 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- @Matthias: So far it only happens for me when building a gcc rpm from source on a (very slow VM), but not when compiling the same sources. Is there anything special about your build machine or environment on

[Bug middle-end/69838] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- With the patch I get an Ice with -m31: spawn -ignore SIGHUP .../build/gcc/xgcc -B.../build/gcc/ .../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O2

[Bug middle-end/69838] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838 --- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt --- I think I've already tested this commit without the patch and did not get that Ice, but maybe my memory fails me. I'm just running the test suite again with the commit reverted to make sure ...

[Bug middle-end/69838] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- If that is unrelated, the patch does not cause any regressions on a biarch build. Sould I also test it in a 31-bit changeroot?

[Bug middle-end/69838] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838 --- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt --- (The test just finished; the Ice is present without the patch too.)

[Bug middle-end/69838] [4.9/5 Regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/69766] go.test/test/env.go fails on biarch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69766 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- If I understand the GOARCH environtment variable right it's value is just the architecture of the build system. So, this test is bound to fail for any multiarch target with the non-standard architecture, and

[Bug go/69766] go.test/test/env.go fails on biarch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69766 --- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 37663 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37663=edit Experimental patch Is the attached patch the right way to deal with this?

[Bug libgomp/69625] New: deadlock in libgomp.c/doacross-1.c test

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: s390x Created attachment 37554 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37554=edit .s file of t

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Ada: c52103x test failure |c52103x and c52104x test

[Bug middle-end/70236] New: Register allocation and loop unrolling lead to waste of registers

Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 37966 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi

[Bug middle-end/70236] Register allocation and loop unrolling lead to waste of registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70236 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 37967 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37967=edit rnreg dump

[Bug target/70404] pr70174.c fails on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- Andreas is already working on the issue, so before anybody spends any more work on this, you should probably coordinate your efforts.

[Bug middle-end/70561] Crash in recog_for_combine_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561 --- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt --- (Ah, probably add_clobbers should have added the clobber, but it hasn't. It doesn't have any code for that pattern.)

[Bug middle-end/70561] Crash in recog_for_combine_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- P.S.: (gdb) p debug_rtx(pat) (set (reg:SI 67 [+4 ]) (and:SI (not:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 65 [ b+-4 ]) 4)) (mem:SI (plus:DI (reg:DI 2 %r2 [ a ]) (const_int 4 [0x4])) [1 *a_2(D)+4

[Bug middle-end/70561] New: Crash in recog_for_combine_1

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x This code in recog_for_combine_1 doesn't look right: -- if (num_clobbers_to_add

[Bug middle-end/70561] Crash in recog_for_combine_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/70174] [6 Regression] ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in gen_lowpart_general, at rtlhooks.c:63

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70174 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug target/70404] New: pr71074.c fails on s390x

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x The new test case from #70174 triggers an ICE on s390x (svn rev 234414): .../build/gcc/xgcc

[Bug other/70078] gccint: define_split "not" allowed to create pseudos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70078 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- Hijacking this bug report for more unclear documentation in that section; proposed changes in marked with <...>. Apart from the bad grammar, the meaning of this sentence is a mystery: Splitting of jump

[Bug other/70078] gccint: define_split "not" allowed to create pseudos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70078 --- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt --- (I'll make a patch with these and some more corrections once it's clear how the wording should be.)

[Bug other/70078] New: gccint: define_split "not" allowed to create pseudos

iority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com Target Milestone: --- The section "Defining How to Split Instructions" in the gccint manual claims The preparation-statements are similar to those statements

[Bug tree-optimization/69196] [5/6 Regression] code size regression with jump threading at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196 --- Comment #20 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 37860 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37860=edit vrp1 dump for s390x (-m64) vrp1 dump for s390x attached (-m64, give me a shout if you need the -m31 dump).

[Bug middle-end/70025] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of gc-7.4.2 on s390x starting with r227382

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- Looks like the extra condition in that patch is still not good enough: --- a/gcc/lra-constraints.c +++ b/gcc/lra-constraints.c @@ -945,6 +945,12 @@ match_reload (signed char out, signed char *ins, enum reg_c

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- S390 does have stack checking support, so the question is really just whether Ada has extra requirements.

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #36 from Dominik Vogt --- (Sorry, comment 35 belongs to the follow-up report https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 )

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- We have zero test failures with the patched code. Is that good enough or should I still take a closer look?

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #35 from Dominik Vogt --- Looks like the extra condition in that patch is still not good enough: --- a/gcc/lra-constraints.c +++ b/gcc/lra-constraints.c @@ -945,6 +945,12 @@ match_reload (signed char out, signed char *ins, enum

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- It looks like no more than activating Stack_Check_Probes is required. Thanks!

[Bug middle-end/70025] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of gc-7.4.2 on s390x starting with r227382

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 --- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt --- This is related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578

[Bug middle-end/70025] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of gc-7.4.2 on s390x starting with r227382

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- Yup. debug_rtx(out_rtx) = (mem/f:DI (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 164 [orig:129 p ] [129]) (const_int 16 [0x10])) [4 p_8(D)->d3+0 S8 A64]) debug_rtx(in_rtx) = (reg/v/f:DI 151 [orig:129 p ] [129])

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- Sorry, comment 6 is wrong, I was thinking about stack *guard* support.

[Bug tree-optimization/69196] [5/6 Regression] code size regression with jump threading at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug middle-end/69983] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/scop-sor.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "number of SCoPs: 1" 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69983 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- Successfully bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x (biarch).

[Bug tree-optimization/69196] [5/6 Regression] code size regression with jump threading at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196 --- Comment #16 from Dominik Vogt --- (In the ChangeLog entry, the "-1" is missing from the name of the new testfile.)

[Bug middle-end/70025] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of gc-7.4.2 on s390x starting with r227382

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 --- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt --- Successfully bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x (-m31 and -m64).

[Bug tree-optimization/69760] [4.9/5 Regression] Wrong 64-bit memory address caused by an unneeded overflowing 32-bit integer multiplication on x86_64 under -O2 and -O3 code optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69760 --- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt --- The regression is fixed with the latest patch for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69983

[Bug tree-optimization/69196] [5/6 Regression] code size regression with jump threading at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196 --- Comment #18 from Dominik Vogt --- Which dumps do you need?

[Bug tree-optimization/68659] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659 --- Comment #22 from Dominik Vogt --- Successfully bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x biarch. Thanks.

[Bug libgomp/69555] libgomp.c++/target-6.C fails because of undefined behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- Successfully bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x biarch. Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/69987] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1639

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69987 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- Fixed on s390x. Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/70025] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of gc-7.4.2 on s390x starting with r227382

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70025 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- Shouldn't this rather check whether the *value* of the register in in_rtx appears in out_rtx?

[Bug middle-end/69987] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1639

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69987 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70404] pr70174.c fails on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- Configured with --with-arch=zEC12

[Bug go/70787] No time and child info with -pg and gccgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70787 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- (I've also tried setting GMON_OUT_PREFIX so that the gmon.out file does not get overwritten by different threads, but in either case only one dump file is created.)

[Bug go/70787] New: No time and child info with -pg and gccgo

Assignee: ian at airs dot com Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: cmang at google dot com, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- It looks like the -pg option does something wrong for Go programs. Example: This program just wastes time in sub

[Bug debug/68860] [6/7 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c -flto -O3 -g line 16/7 arg1 == 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- By the way, I think the value of y should be tested *after* the asm statement in line 17 not before it in line 16. At higher optimization levels the assignement may not have happened yet when gdb reaches

[Bug debug/68860] [6/7 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c -flto -O3 -g line 16/7 arg1 == 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860 --- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt --- We've just been looking at this today for s390x which fails these tests for various reasons too (actually we've located at least four different Gcc bugs by looking at this test case). Some of the

[Bug go/70787] No time and child info with -pg and gccgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70787 --- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt --- The Go runtime seems to register a handler for SIGPROF even if it does not want to profile. So it always uninstalls the handler installed by Glibc on behalf of the -pg option. To me it looks like -pg

[Bug target/69148] [5 Regression] ICE (floating point exception) on s390x-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug libstdc++/79348] New: abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com Target Milestone: --- 2 undesignated symbols 0 _ZSt11__once_call std::__once_call version status: compatible GLIBCXX_3.4.11 type: tls type size: 8 status: undesignated 1

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 --- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > Author: rguenth > Date: Wed Nov 16 08:42:20 2016 > New Revision: 242470 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242470=gcc=rev > Log: > 2016-11-16 Richard

[Bug libstdc++/79348] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- How do you regenerate the baseline files for s390*?

[Bug libstdc++/79348] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Why have these symbols appeared now? Is TLS enabled by default on this > target now? Did something change regarding TLS? Not that I know of. > Are you using

[Bug libstdc++/79348] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- (Also happend without --enable-shared.)

[Bug libstdc++/79348] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- The test failure has started with r238647: Move allocator in std::string and RB tree move constructors PR libstdc++/71964 * include/bits/basic_string.h [_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI]

[Bug libstdc++/79348] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- Before that the "undesignated symbols" were around already, but the test PASSed anyway.

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- Gdb says: (gdb) ptype __typeof__(size_t) type = unsigned long (gdb) ptype __typeof__(SIZE_MAX) type = unsigned int Two different types for unsigned 32 bit integers.

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- Or even -- #include #include #define FOO(TYPE, EXPR) __typeof__(EXPR) a; __typeof__((TYPE)0 + 0) *b = void foo (void) { FOO(__SIZE_TYPE__, (SIZE_MAX)); } -- So __typeof__(SIZE_MAX) is different

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #2) > The reduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64 but the original probably only > with -m31 - right?! Sorry, you're right. I was doing too many things in

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- From /sysdeps/s390/dl-tls.h: /* The special thing about the s390 TLS ABI is that we do not have the standard __tls_get_addr function but the __tls_get_offset function which differs in two important

[Bug middle-end/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #30 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #24) > The root cause of this mess is actually init_emit: > > REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_INCOMING_ARGS_REGNUM) = STACK_BOUNDARY; > REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN

[Bug rtl-optimization/78634] [7 Regression] 30% performance drop after r242832.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78634 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- It fails with -march=zEC12 but not with -march=z900. It seems to be a tuning issue of the branch cost in the backend; a colleague is working on that and will mave a patch at some time in the future. So, I

[Bug ada/79403] New: Installation of Ada compiler gets permissions wrong

: ada Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x "make install" of the Ada compiler installs the contests of the adainclude and adalib directories with

[Bug other/79341] New: Many Asan tests fail on s390

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390 Target: s390 The recent Asan patch for s390x (64 bit) has triggered about 270 Asan test failures on s390

[Bug middle-end/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #33 from Dominik Vogt --- I still disagree with reverting the patch. There was plenty of time to identify and fix affected backends instead of doing nothing for half five months and then claiming that the patch is potentially too

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #35 from Dominik Vogt --- r244167 vs. r244166 (comment 21) --- run-old.resultrun-new.result f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #36 from Dominik Vogt --- r244207 vs. r244206 (comment 24) --- run-old.resultrun-new.result f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #38 from Dominik Vogt --- Finally, the total between after the last and before the first patch. Overall, some tests gain some performance and others lose some. The total number of instructions has grown somewhat (especially tonto,

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #34 from Dominik Vogt --- Some Spec2006 results on s390x (zEC12) for the files: r243995 vs. r243994 (comment 14) --- run-old.resultrun-new.result f410.bwaves

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #37 from Dominik Vogt --- r244260 vs. r244256 (comment 25) --- run-old.resultrun-new.result f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )

[Bug libstdc++/79348] [7 Regression] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- All right, but what is the cause of that? The commit that git-bisect found seems to be completely unrelated(?) Examples: -- 4 _ZGTtNSt11range_errorC2EPKc transaction clone for

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 --- Comment #16 from Dominik Vogt --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00424.html

[Bug libstdc++/79348] [7 Regression] abi_check fails on s390x (2 undesignated symbols)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348 --- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 40679 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40679=edit test outpu Full test output attached.

[Bug tree-optimization/71144] [6/7 Regression] isl_aff.c:1001: position out of bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- This no longer happens with current trunk. The warnings are still present, but the ICE is gone: (In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #1) > I get (pprobably) the same ICE on s390x with today's devel branch

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- It still fails with /* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-ldist-details --param max-unroll-times=8" } */

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 --- Comment #15 from Dominik Vogt --- Yep. I'll post a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/71144] [6/7 Regression] isl_aff.c:1001: position out of bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- The ICE (s390x) has gone away with this commit: 2017-01-31 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/77318 * graphite-sese-to-poly.c (extract_affine): Fix assert.

[Bug ada/79421] New: gnat.dg/trampoline3.adb fails on s390x

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x The test case trampoline3.adb fails on s390x configured with --march=zEC12, using

[Bug ada/79403] Installation of Ada compiler gets permissions wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- (Happens with gcc-6.3; 7.0 was *not* tested.)

[Bug sanitizer/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #25 from Dominik Vogt --- Looks better, but now we get this quite often: -- ==23722==ERROR: Your kernel seems to be vulnerable to CVE-2016-2143. Using ASa\ n, MSan, TSan, DFSan or LSan with such kernel can and will crash your

[Bug sanitizer/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #26 from Dominik Vogt --- (We cannot upgrade the kernel before end of this or beginning of next week.)

[Bug sanitizer/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #29 from Dominik Vogt --- $ uname -s -r Linux 4.2.0-20151029.0.65fcf15.5a12af1.fc20.s390xperformance I'm quite sure we had a working kernel on that machine at some time because I believe to remember that I'd been the first one who

[Bug c/79356] New: XPASS in attr-alloc_size-11.c

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x The test has two xfails that do pass on s390x with --with-arch

[Bug tree-optimization/78348] [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- Fails if configured with "--with-arch=zEC12", passes without that.

[Bug rtl-optimization/70478] [LRA] S/390: Performance regression - superfluous stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- Hm, Stefan says that RHEL 7.3 has a Glibc-2.17 with a backport of the patch.

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt --- > so it should then for s390*-*-linux* also test for glibc >= 2.19 using > AC_TRY_COMPILE and preprocessor macros or so? Or something like $ nm /lib/ld-*.*.so | grep __tls_get_addr_internal ?

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- The opinion of whoever added the S390 code to sanitizer_common_interceptors.inc ("chefmax") might help?

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- Okay, the symbol __tls_get_addr_internal exists since Glibc-2.19 on s390*, and the test machine has Glibc-2.18. Is this something that needs to be fixed in libsanitizer, or does the test machine need an

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- The symbol was introduced to Glibc after 2.18 and before 2.19.

[Bug rtl-optimization/78634] [7 Regression] 30% performance drop after r242832.

, ||rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com, ||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- This commit has broken a test case on s390x: FAIL: gcc.target/s390/loc-1.c scan-assembler \tlocgrne\t%r2,%r4

[Bug c/79358] New: gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com CC: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: s390x Target: s390x FAIL: gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: .../gcc

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- (built with --enable-bootstrap, --enable-multilib and --with-arch=zEC12)

[Bug c/448] -related issues (C99 issues)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- Comment

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- I.e. this is a Glibc related problem? The test machine has Glibc-2.18.

[Bug c/79358] gcc.dg/c99-stdint-1.c fails with excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- > The reduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64 but the original probably only > with -m31 - right?! The unreduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64. I've tried the reduced test case only with -m64.

[Bug middle-end/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #35 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #34) > > I still disagree with reverting the patch. There was plenty of time to > > identify and fix affected backends instead of doing nothing for half five > >

<    1   2   3   4   5   >