[Bug tree-optimization/114864] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-fre" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug target/114861] [14/15 Regression] LoongArch: ICE building the kernel with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114861 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug target/114860] [14/15 regression] [aarch64] 511.povray regresses by ~5.5% with -O3 -flto -march=native -mcpu=neoverse-v2 since r14-10014-ga2f4be3dae04fa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug c++/114856] [14/15 regression][modules] ICE (segfault)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114856 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug middle-end/114855] ICE: Segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com Ever

[Bug target/114734] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl since r8-6047-g65dd1346027bb5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- posted the patch so the arm CI picks it up.

[Bug target/114734] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl since r8-6047-g65dd1346027bb5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/114853] Inefficient code with a bunch of bitwise checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114853 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |tree-optimization Keywords|

[Bug target/114734] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #8) > Created attachment 58037 [details] > Expand dump > > Dump attached. Insn 209 is the problematic one. > The changing from _911 to 1078 happens in

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/114734] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #6) > This one is really a bit tricky. > > We have the following situation: > > loop: > > # vectp_g.178_1078 = PHI > _911 = vectp_g.178_1078 > MASK_LEN_LOAD

[Bug gcov-profile/114751] .gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- I don't know of any difference compared to older compilers but gcov isn't my main expertise. I fear you have to dig into the gcov code to see where and how we exactly invent the stamp to see where it goes

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #58024|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > Created attachment 58024 [details] > patch > > I quickly tried this which works for the testcase but I'm sure it'll break > quickly. during GIMPLE pass:

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 58024 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58024=edit patch I quickly tried this which works for the testcase but I'm sure it'll break quickly.

[Bug tree-optimization/114792] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.cc:903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114792 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/114787] [13 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114787 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||14.0 Summary|[13/14

[Bug tree-optimization/114832] [14 Regression] ICE at -O{2,3} with "-fno-tree-loop-if-convert -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns -ftree-vectorize" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_dominators, at dominan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114832 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/114787] [13/14 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114787 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 58023 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58023=edit patch I'm testing this.

[Bug tree-optimization/114787] [13/14 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114787 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug gcov-profile/114751] .gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- I have no idea why the values differ but I suspect the copying since we seem to use the file modification time at some point. As a workaround I would suggest to binary-patch one of the file to make the

[Bug tree-optimization/114832] [14 Regression] ICE at -O{2,3} with "-fno-tree-loop-if-convert -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns -ftree-vectorize" on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_dominators, at dominan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114832 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/114826] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning for 32-byte array with certain march flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114826 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Rather store merging I guess.

[Bug tree-optimization/114823] Missed optimization of redundant loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114823 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/114799] [13 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.cc:85 with -O2 -fno-vect-cost-model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114799 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Summary|[14 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/114799] [14 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.cc:85 with -O2 -fno-vect-cost-model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114799 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- t.i:11:6: note: node (external) 0x4918928 (max_nunits=1, refcnt=2) t.i:11:6: note: { t1_6, patt_10 } I have a fix for this latent issue.

[Bug target/114801] [14 Regression] arm: ICE in find_cached_value, at rtx-vector-builder.cc:100 with MVE intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114801 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/114799] [14 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.cc:85 with -O2 -fno-vect-cost-model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114799 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/114785] special handling of COND_EXPR in gimple_extract can be removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114785 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Note there's still code in tree-vect-patterns.cc creating those and code in tree-vect-stmts.cc might use gimple_extract on them.

[Bug tree-optimization/114779] __builtin_constant_p does not work in inline functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- I tried removing the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS check at some point and it had quite some fallout even in the testsuite. Don't remember the PR I tried this for ...

[Bug tree-optimization/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to interleaving stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/114769] [14 Regression] Suspicious code in vect_recog_sad_pattern() since r14-1832

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114769 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to interleaving sotres

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/114769] [14 Regression] Suspicious code in vect_recog_sad_pattern()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114769 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Suspicious code in |[14 Regression] Suspicious

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-18

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- It's the combine pass that removes the seemingly noop-move. For QOI reasons GCC preserves volatile accesses elsewhere even when inconsistency is directly visible like here.

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Last

[Bug tree-optimization/114761] Ignored [[likely]] attribute with multiple if statements doing the same thing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114761 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-18 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/114760] traling zero count detection failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114760 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- I think it's also a missed canonicalization for x << 1 vs. x + x (and 2*x). unsigned a, b, c; void foo (unsigned x) { a = x << 1; b = x + x; c = 2 * x; } x + x gets folded to 2 * x before

[Bug middle-end/114753] from_chars aborts with -m32 -ftrapv when passed -9223372036854775808

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114753 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/114753] from_chars aborts with -m32 -ftrapv when passed -9223372036854775808

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114753 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|c++

[Bug target/82731] _mm256_set_epi8(array[offset[0]], array[offset[1]], ...) byte gather makes slow code, trying to zero-extend all the uint16_t offsets first and spilling them.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- That's ix86_expand_vector_init_interleave which for QI inner_mode extends to SImode, likely because it tries to work with just SSE2?

[Bug target/82731] _mm256_set_epi8(array[offset[0]], array[offset[1]], ...) byte gather makes slow code, trying to zero-extend all the uint16_t offsets first and spilling them.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- We do not BB vectorize gathers I think (ISTR some "loop" uses in the infrastructure, not too difficult to fix I guess). In the end the problem is RTL expansion of the CTOR and then lack of combine? Look

[Bug tree-optimization/114749] [13 Regression] RISC-V rv64gcv ICE: in vectorizable_load, at tree-vect-stmts.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.3 Summary|[14] RISC-V

[Bug gcov-profile/114751] .gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- >From reading what the gcov code does it somehow means that the gcda and gcno files were not created consistently. You can use gcov-dump to check the stamp, for an example pair I have around I see

[Bug tree-optimization/114749] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv ICE: in vectorizable_load, at tree-vect-stmts.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/23096] Wrong folding for FLOOR_MOD_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23096 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/17951] Dominance info is incorrect for entry and exit blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17951 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 57970 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57970=edit not quite working patch Some TLC to all this might make fixing easier. This is a start (at fixing, not TLC). At

[Bug target/114734] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- probably -fwhole-program is enough, -flto not needed(?) # vectp_g.248_1401 = PHI ... _1411 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_1409, POLY_INT_CST [2, 2]); .. vect__193.250_1403 = .MASK_LEN_LOAD (vectp_g.248_1401,

[Bug other/114738] [14 Regression] Default DOCUMENTATION_ROOT_URL vs. release branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114738 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- We could also make changing it part of branching.html and have additional directories without minor/patchlevel version, thus https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14/ where we could autogenerate docs in more

[Bug other/114738] [14 Regression] Default DOCUMENTATION_ROOT_URL vs. release branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114738 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/114737] Missed optimization : fail to optimize load with select clobber

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114737 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-16

[Bug middle-end/114733] [13 Regression] Miscompile with -march=rv64gcv -O3 on riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/114736] [13 Regression] ICE during SLP pass with gfortran-13 -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.3 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/114736] ICE during SLP pass with gfortran-13 -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/114733] [14] Miscompile with -march=rv64gcv -O3 on riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So the issue is that we do switch (induction_type) { case vect_step_op_neg: if (TREE_CODE (init_expr) != INTEGER_CST && TREE_CODE (init_expr) != REAL_CST) { /*

[Bug middle-end/114733] [14] Miscompile with -march=rv64gcv -O3 on riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/114736] ICE during SLP pass with gfortran-13 -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- It's probably latent on trunk. The assert verifies all vertices are backward reachable from the leafs. vertices and leafs are discovered with a DFS from the instances. So the question is what's that

[Bug target/114734] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3 -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/114730] should enum types be vector types?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114730 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I think we need to reject all integral types whose operation range doesn't match the corresponding integer mode range. For enums it depends on the language standard, in general I'd say it's not wanted.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114729] RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu excessive spillls with -fschedule-insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||riscv --- Comment #6 from Richard

[Bug c/114727] ICE with c23 with aligned attribute and .-g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Possibly type verification should be triggered from rest_of_type_compilation rather than from (only) gen_type_die_with_usage.

[Bug c/114723] ICE when checking for type compatibility with structure that contains flexible array member (C23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114723 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #32 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #31) > While that does seem to fix the bug, it's at the cost of 6 additional stores > in the problematic test that are redundant other than changing the alias

[Bug target/109964] auto-vectorization of shift ignores integral promotions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109964 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/110935] Missed BB reduction vectorization because of missed eliding of a permute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110935 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- So ideally we could special-case the "output" of the SLP instance root. It might be possible to insert the node just into the digraph.

[Bug target/110214] x86 backend lacks support for vec_pack_ssat_m and vec_pack_usat_m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110214 Bug 110214 depends on bug 108410, which changed state. Bug 108410 Summary: x264 averaging loop not optimized well for avx512 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 108410, which changed state. Bug 108410 Summary: x264 averaging loop not optimized well for avx512 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 108410, which changed state. Bug 108410 Summary: x264 averaging loop not optimized well for avx512 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/108410] x264 averaging loop not optimized well for avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/109964] auto-vectorization of shift ignores integral promotions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109964 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- I think this has been fixed now?

[Bug tree-optimization/113479] Two equivalent programs have inconsistent output results at the same optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113479 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/114717] '-fcf-protection' vs. offloading compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114717 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #3) > Can this be filtered (safely) in mkoffload? That tool is > offload-target-specific, so no problem with "if offload target were to > support it". Yes, I think

[Bug driver/114717] '-fcf-protection' vs. offloading compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114717 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||lto Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/114719] Missed optimization: conditional in loop is an invariant (a%2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114719 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug gcov-profile/114715] Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested switches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||14.0 --- Comment #4 from Richard

[Bug gcov-profile/114715] Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested switches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug gcov-profile/114715] Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested switches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.cc b/gcc/gimplify.cc index 3df58b962f3..26e96ada4c7 100644 --- a/gcc/gimplify.cc +++ b/gcc/gimplify.cc @@ -3017,6 +3017,7 @@ gimplify_switch_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p)

[Bug gcov-profile/114715] Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested switches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Besides OMP the switch gimplification code is the only one building a new BIND.

[Bug gcov-profile/114715] Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested switches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-15 Known to fail|

[Bug lto/114713] incorrect TBAA for struct with flexible array member or GNU zero size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114713 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Also note that people might find it reasonable to access struct { int n; int a[4]; } a = { 4, }; via struct X { int n; int a[] } *p; The fortran frontend goes some lengths to make this work for array

[Bug lto/114713] incorrect TBAA for struct with flexible array member or GNU zero size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114713 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |14.0 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/114711] Missed optimization: fold load of global constant array if there is obivous pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114711 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- This one requires "symbolicizing" an initializer. That might for example also help implementing a non-constant initializer with a loop, reducing .data and possibly relocations. It might also help

[Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- I think if (safelen) { poly_uint64 val; safelen = OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR (safelen); if (!poly_int_tree_p (safelen, )) safelen_int = 0; else safelen_int =

[Bug tree-optimization/114704] Missed optimization : eliminate store if the value is known in all predecessors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- We're not handling "phi translation" in the lookup phase when determining if there's a redundant store (PHI translation for the virtual operand). In particular value-numbering never considers whether an

[Bug ipa/114703] Missed devirtualization in rather simple case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114703 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener --- I have tested the following since that might confuse the redundant store removal sanity checks. It bootstraps fine on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu but causes FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-36.c

[Bug rust/113499] crab1 fails to link when configuring with --disable-plugin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Arthur Cohen from comment #6) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4) > > > If I understood Arthur correctly, GCC/Rust is going to

[Bug tree-optimization/114701] Missed optimization of loop invariant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-12

[Bug tree-optimization/114403] [14 regression] LLVM miscompiled with -O3 -march=znver2 -fno-vect-cost-model since r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403 --- Comment #27 from Richard Biener --- I think that adjusting an existing upper bound by -1 because of gap peeling is wrong when that upper bound may not apply to the IV exit. Because gap peeling only affects the IV exit test and not the

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #28 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #27) > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #26) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25) > > > I think it's more interesting why > > > > > > *

[Bug tree-optimization/114403] [14 regression] LLVM miscompiled with -O3 -march=znver2 -fno-vect-cost-model since r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/114403] [14 regression] LLVM miscompiled with -O3 -march=znver2 -fno-vect-cost-model since r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403 --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener --- Maybe easier to understand testcase: long x[9]; long a[20]; struct { long x; long b[40]; } b; int __attribute__((noipa)) foo (int n) { int i = 0; int k = 0; do { if (x[k++]) // early

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #25 from Richard Biener --- I think it's more interesting why * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] = {r0:SI..r3:SI} isn't considered as dependence? Why does the earlier insn even come into play? What's the

[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -ftrapv.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- That that GCC doesn't promise that -ftrapv preserves all overflows and traps, it merely guarantees that all overflows that actually happen trap. So GCC is fine to contract some expressions where the

[Bug libgcc/114689] [14 Regression] libgcc/config/m68k/fpgnulib.c:305: Suspicious coding ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||m68k Target Milestone|---

[Bug testsuite/109596] [14 Regression] Lots of guality testcase fails on x86_64 after r14-162-gcda246f8b421ba

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug ipa/114681] ICE: in as_a, at is-a.h:255 with -O -fnon-call-exceptions -fno-exceptions -fcondition-coverage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114681 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >