https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> No, I think the issue is that ESRA leaves e.f0 alone:
>
> e$f3_7 = e.f3;
> e$f0$f4_8 = e.f0.f4;
> _1 = e$f0$f4_8;
> _2 = (unsigned char) _1;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> > In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the array
> > are semantically equivalent which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114662
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks a lot for taking care of it before I had a chance to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #75 from Martin Jambor ---
The above fixes the testcase from comment #58. I am not sure if any other
testcases discussed here remain unresolved. I am also not sure to what extent
we want to that patch of mine, I guess I'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
This should be fixed on master, I'll backport the fix in a few weeks to at
least gcc-13 where it was reported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
On master this has been fixed by r14-9813-g8cd0d29270d4ed where I
unfortunately copy-pasted a wrong bug number :-/
I assume this needs backporting to at least gcc-13 and gcc-12. I'll do
that in a week or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Oops. I made a mistake, the commit above fixes PR 114247, sorry :-/
This one is the next in my queue. Sorry again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks, I will bootstrap and test the patch on x86_64 and submit it
for review then.
Can I ask you, can you please modify the testcase so that it does not
use printf but simply calls __builtin_abort in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> I however wonder if we really guarantee to copy the paddings everywhere else
> then the total scalarization part?
> (i.e. in all paths through the RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #71 from Martin Jambor ---
I have sent the patch to the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6le5s25kl@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I don't seem to be able to get riscv64 qemu running in reasonable
time. Can someone please verify that the following patch fixes
the issue?
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-param-manipulation.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57828=edit
Potential fix
I'm testing this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #66 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57750=edit
Patch comparing jump functions
I'm testing this patch. (Not sure how to best check that it does not
inadvertently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 regression]|[11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #65 from Martin Jambor ---
I hope to have some jump-function comparison functions ready for testing later
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I'd like to ping this, are there plans to implement this in the near-ish term?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gbwf7l@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gkzvi4@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed an improved patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gkzvi4@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Bug ID: 114254
Summary: Indirect inlining through C++ member pointers fails if
the underlying class has a virtual function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114238
Bug ID: 114238
Summary: Multiple 554.roms_r run-time regressions (4%-20%)
since r14-9193-ga0b1798042d033
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6y1bdx3yg@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111573
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I cannot see any difference at -O3 with or without -fno-early-inlining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112312
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
It seems this has been fixed in current master (which is to become gcc 14).
If my bisecting is correct, it has been fixed by r14-5628-g53ba8d669550d3 (Jan
Hubicka: inter-procedural value range propagation).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57462=edit
Simple testcase (needs disabling early - and only early - SRA)
This is a simpler testcase which exhibits the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list that converts the array of lattices
to a vector:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6frxoxzpk@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
I have access to the benchmark and building it with -fprofile-generate
it fails for me (with an ICE in add_symbol_to_partition_1) only when I
use -fno-use-linker-plugin and either -std=c++11 or -std=c++03.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #17)
> I've bisected this (using the test from Andrew Pinski) to
> r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
That's a coincidence, with -fno-ipa-sra the testcase fails even earlier,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113847
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> CCing also Martin who should know how/why IPA SRA doesn't reconstruct the
> component ref chain here
I have not had a look at this specific case (yet), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113833
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57397=edit
-fopt-info-vec before/after comparison
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> A compare before/after the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110422
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113833
Bug ID: 113833
Summary: 435.gromacs fails verification on with -Ofast
-march={cascadelake,icelake-server} and PGO after
r14-7272-g57f611604e8bab
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6bk8r5kfi@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> Might be also an interaction with IPA ICF in case there's a pointer to
> the pair involved?
Yes, this is exactly what seems to be happening. The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
SRA creates the replacements (in GCC 13) during total scalarization,
i.e. the bit that is not driven by pre-existing accesses to
aggregates, but because it sees an aggregate that is small and regular
and so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did you try with -fprofile-partial-training (is that default on? it
> probably should ...). Can you please try training with the rate data
> instead of train
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113655
Bug ID: 113655
Summary: Cross compiling to mips64-elf fails because
"MIPS_EXPLICIT_RELOCS was not declared" after
r14-8386-g58af788d1d0825
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
Bug ID: 113646
Summary: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at
-Ofast -march=native
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113641
Bug ID: 113641
Summary: 510.parest_r with PGO at O2 slower than GCC 12 (7% on
Zen 3&2, 4% on CascadeLake) since
r13-4272-g8caf155a3d6e23
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> A patch is posted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640276.html
>
> Would you give a try to see if it fixes the regression, I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107946
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
Bug ID: 113600
Summary: 525.x264_r run-time regresses by 8% with PGO -Ofast
-march=znver4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have re-checked this year again (using master revision
r14-7200-g95440171d0e615) but this time on a high-frequency Zen3 CPU (EPYC
75F3). Run-time of 525.x264_r built with master with PGO and -O2 improved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on trunk. I did not want to backport this but because this variant does
not require disabling DCE, I will probably do after a few weeks on master, if
there are no issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on trunk. I did not want to backport this but because of PR 112616 I
will probably do after a few weeks on master, if there are no issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113490
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
The right place where to free stuff in lattices post-IPA would be in
ipa_node_params::~ipa_node_params() where we should iterate over lattices and
deinitialize them or perhaps destruct the array because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113490
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6cytv3eyy.fsf@/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #28 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #27)
> The original article checked gcc-10.
> gcc-13 is checked in the following article:
>
> https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/cpp/1067/
>
> I suspect it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113490
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110422
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on trunk, I plan to backport to open release branches in the upcoming
weeks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 94629, which changed state.
Bug 94629 Summary: 10 issues located by the PVS-studio static analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110422
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> # q_11 = PHI <0B(2), removed_return.14_14(D)(4),
> removed_return.14_14(D)(3)>
> _12 = *q_11;
>
>
> WTF
Well, _12 is not used anywhere, so the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
I have submitted a slightly modified patch to the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6cyu1e9kw.fsf@/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113296
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 113296, which changed state.
Bug 113296 Summary: [14 Regression] SPEC 2006 434.zeusmp segfaults on Aarch64
when built with -Ofast -march=native -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113296
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113178
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107823
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109744
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109823
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109828
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109918
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110065
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110091
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110294
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110450
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110705
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110768
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110941
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110942
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111003
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111012
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110841
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113197
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113296
Bug ID: 113296
Summary: SPEC 2006 434.zeusmp segfaults on Aarch64 when built
with -Ofast -march=native -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113295
Bug ID: 113295
Summary: SPEC 2006 416.gamess miscompares on Aarch64 when built
with -Ofast -march=native -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113144
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
The testcase below segfaults when compiled with master configured with
release checking. However, it is very likely affected by this bug (it
fails with checking compiler like testcases for this issue do)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113145
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] ICE when|[14 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113237
Bug ID: 113237
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE verify_ssa failed when building
500.perlbench_r since r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #34 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #32)
> > /tmp/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h:437:
> > warning: 'void* __builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, long unsigned int)'
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112822
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Thank you, I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640356.html
If it is approved, I'd also like you to add the testcase to the testsuite as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112822
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
The following should fix it. I'll try a bit more to come up with a testcase
that would not require __builtin_vec_vsx_st but so far my simple attempts
failed.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112822
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112922
Bug ID: 112922
Summary: 465.tonto from SPECFP 2006 fails train run on
Aarch64-linux with -O2 and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 539 matches
Mail list logo
