[Bug tree-optimization/106106] SRA scalarizes structure copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
SRA is eliding 'v' by doing what it does, so it essentially changes
D.22939 = __builtin_aarch64_ld2v2sf (p1_2(D));
v = D.22939;
__b = v;
D.22937 = __builtin_aarch64_ld2_lanev2sf (p2_3(D), __b, 1); [tail call]
to
D.22939 = __builtin_aarch64_ld2v2sf (p1_2(D));
__b = D.22939;
D.22937 = __builtin_aarch64_ld2_lanev2sf (p2_3(D), __b, 1); [tail call]
but due to how it works overall it cannot do this without exposing the
scalar pieces and "re-materializing" __b.
__extension__ extern __inline float32x2x2_t
__attribute__ ((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__, __artificial__))
vld2_lane_f32 (const float32_t * __a, float32x2x2_t __b, const int __c)
{
union { float32x2x2_t __i; __builtin_neon_ti __o; } __bu = { __b };
union { float32x2x2_t __i; __builtin_neon_ti __o; } __rv;
__rv.__o = __builtin_neon_vld2_lanev2sf ((const __builtin_neon_sf *) __a,
__bu.__o, __c);
return __rv.__i;
}
it looks like providing __builtin_neon_vld2_lanev2sf with float32x2x2
argument and return type might avoid one copy.
In any case improving register allocation or massaging the RTL before it
is the way to go here. How does the RTL IL fed to RA differ with/without SRA?
[Bug fortran/106108] gfortran gives warning about unitilialized variable for string with both allocatable length and size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is because .args (the on the side len of the allocatable) is
uninitialized,
its value stored to 2 unused temporary variables and then .dtype.elem_len field
of args:
integer(kind=8) .args;
struct array01_character(kind=1) args;
bitsizetype D.4249;
sizetype D.4250;
D.4249 = (bitsizetype) (sizetype) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <.args> * 8;
D.4250 = (sizetype) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <.args>;
args.data = 0B;
args.dtype = {.elem_len=(unsigned long) .args, .rank=1, .type=6};
{
integer(kind=4) overflow.0;
logical(kind=4) not_prev_allocated.1;
.args = 6;
args.dtype = {.elem_len=(unsigned long) .args, .rank=1, .type=6};
and only on allocate .args is overwritten and args.dtype.elem_len updated to
it.
So, I think for the allocatables .args should be initialized to 0 or something
similar before the args variable is "constructed".
[Bug tree-optimization/106106] SRA scalarizes structure copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106 --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > SRA is eliding 'v' by doing what it does, so it essentially changes > it looks like providing __builtin_neon_vld2_lanev2sf with float32x2x2 > argument and return type might avoid one copy. > We already do, the UNSPEC is (insn 11 10 12 2 (set (reg:V2x2SF 95 [ D.22913 ]) (unspec:V2x2SF [ (mem:BLK (reg/v/f:DI 100 [ p2 ]) [0 S8 A8]) (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) (const_int 1 [0x1]) ] UNSPEC_LD2_LANE)) "/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220628/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/include/arm_neon.h":17515:10 -1 (nil)) > In any case improving register allocation or massaging the RTL before it > is the way to go here. How does the RTL IL fed to RA differ with/without > SRA? I am not sure this a reload problem. The underlying type of float32x2x2_t which is V2x2SF always reserves two sequential registers. without SRA we get (insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg/v:V2x2SF 95 [ v ]) (reg:V2x2SF 92 [ D.22915 ])) -1 (nil)) (insn 9 8 10 2 (set (reg/v:V2x2SF 96 [ __b ]) (reg/v:V2x2SF 95 [ v ])) -1 (nil)) which is simple to eliminate as it's copying the whole structure in one go and reload eliminates the extra move fine. With SRA scalarization you end up with a series of subregs (insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:V2SF 93 [ v$val$1 ]) (subreg:V2SF (reg:V2x2SF 94 [ D.22915 ]) 8)) -1 (nil)) (insn 9 8 10 2 (set (subreg:V2SF (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) 0) (subreg:V2SF (reg:V2x2SF 94 [ D.22915 ]) 0)) -1 (nil)) (insn 10 9 11 2 (set (subreg:V2SF (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) 8) (reg:V2SF 93 [ v$val$1 ])) -1 (nil)) So we get an explicit extract and piecewise recreation of the V2x2SF, 94 will take 2 registers and 97 two different ones. reload is just doing as it was told.
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096 --- Comment #5 from chenglulu --- Created attachment 53213 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53213&action=edit Modify the allocation order of caller saved registers.
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #5)
> Created attachment 53213 [details]
> Modify the allocation order of caller saved registers.
I think we need to completely prevent LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP from being used for
sibcall:
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
index 4d107a42209..f9de9a6e4fb 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
+++ b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
@@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ enum reg_class
#define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS \
{ \
{ 0x, 0x, 0x }, /* NO_REGS */ \
- { 0x001ff000, 0x, 0x }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
+ { 0x001fd000, 0x, 0x }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
{ 0xff90, 0x, 0x }, /* JIRL_REGS */\
{ 0xfffc, 0x, 0x }, /* CSR_REGS */ \
{ 0x, 0x, 0x }, /* GR_REGS */ \
Or even if LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP is less preferred, the register allocator may
still use it for sibcall and blow something up again.
(Above is for $r13, if you want to use $r12 instead as LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP you
need to adjust it.)
[Bug target/106053] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-fre since r13-707-g68e0063397ba820e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106053 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- It's fold_sign_changed_comparison (in it's match.pd incarnation) that replaces (uint128) a == (uint128) b with a == (signed-bool:128) b. That's a latent issue exposed by the change as we now fold this comparison while we didn't before.
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096 --- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #5) > > Created attachment 53213 [details] > > Modify the allocation order of caller saved registers. > > I think we need to completely prevent LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP from being used > for sibcall For example, the RISC-V change explicitly exclude x5 (their temp for epilogue): https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01228.html
[Bug tree-optimization/106106] SRA scalarizes structure copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org, ||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #2) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > SRA is eliding 'v' by doing what it does, so it essentially changes > > it looks like providing __builtin_neon_vld2_lanev2sf with float32x2x2 > > argument and return type might avoid one copy. > > > > We already do, the UNSPEC is > > (insn 11 10 12 2 (set (reg:V2x2SF 95 [ D.22913 ]) > (unspec:V2x2SF [ > (mem:BLK (reg/v/f:DI 100 [ p2 ]) [0 S8 A8]) > (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) > (const_int 1 [0x1]) > ] UNSPEC_LD2_LANE)) > "/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220628/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/ > lib/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/include/arm_neon.h":17515:10 -1 > (nil)) > > > In any case improving register allocation or massaging the RTL before it > > is the way to go here. How does the RTL IL fed to RA differ with/without > > SRA? > > I am not sure this a reload problem. The underlying type of float32x2x2_t > which is V2x2SF always reserves two sequential registers. > > without SRA we get > > (insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg/v:V2x2SF 95 [ v ]) > (reg:V2x2SF 92 [ D.22915 ])) -1 > (nil)) > (insn 9 8 10 2 (set (reg/v:V2x2SF 96 [ __b ]) > (reg/v:V2x2SF 95 [ v ])) -1 > (nil)) So float32x2x2_t is a register on RTL but an aggregate in GIMPLE :/ > which is simple to eliminate as it's copying the whole structure in one go > and reload eliminates the extra move fine. With SRA scalarization you end > up with a series of subregs > > (insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:V2SF 93 [ v$val$1 ]) > (subreg:V2SF (reg:V2x2SF 94 [ D.22915 ]) 8)) -1 > (nil)) > (insn 9 8 10 2 (set (subreg:V2SF (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) 0) > (subreg:V2SF (reg:V2x2SF 94 [ D.22915 ]) 0)) -1 > (nil)) > (insn 10 9 11 2 (set (subreg:V2SF (reg/v:V2x2SF 97 [ __b ]) 8) > (reg:V2SF 93 [ v$val$1 ])) -1 > (nil)) So why do we get the lowpart copy in insn 9 but the highpart requires two insns? But yes, it looks like the RA fails to follow copies of multi-reg pseudos when they are copied component-wise. > So we get an explicit extract and piecewise recreation of the V2x2SF, 94 > will take 2 registers and 97 two different ones. reload is just doing as it > was told. Is the fact that float32x2x2_t is an aggregate with a field named 'val' part of the neon API? If so I can write such a SRAed copy manually and we don't optimize that well which means it is worth trying to optimize this. In general it looks like re-composing these kind of copies for multi-register pseudos might be a useful thing, not sure if there's a good pass in the RTL pipeline to do this job. Not optimizing it on the SRA side would leave you with extra aggregate copies. It might be worth enhancing SRA to be flow-sensitive so it could see that the component replacement it creates die at the aggregate rematerialization point so it would avoid creating them in the first place but I fear that's a quite large project. We could heuristically avoid to scalarize arrays when the aggregate has a vector mode. Alternatively instead of scalarizing to the array element type we could choose the type of the aggregate mode (but only when doing total scalarization, that is, when there are no component uses or defs).
[Bug tree-optimization/106106] SRA scalarizes structure copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106 --- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina --- > > Is the fact that float32x2x2_t is an aggregate with a field named 'val' > part of the neon API? Yeah, it's mandated by ACLE https://arm-software.github.io/acle/main/acle.html#vector-array-data-types-1 > > We could heuristically avoid to scalarize arrays when the aggregate has > a vector mode. Alternatively instead of scalarizing to the array > element type we could choose the type of the aggregate mode (but only > when doing total scalarization, that is, when there are no component > uses or defs). I was wondering about this as well, since in principle this would have been a win if the user had manually extracted one of the vectors. The scalarization would have allowed us to ignore the rest of the vector earlier in gimple. It's that the type is used whole that seems like the problem
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096
--- Comment #8 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 53213 [details]
> > Modify the allocation order of caller saved registers.
>
> I think we need to completely prevent LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP from being used
> for sibcall:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
> b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
> index 4d107a42209..f9de9a6e4fb 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h
> @@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ enum reg_class
> #define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS \
> { \
>{ 0x, 0x, 0x }, /* NO_REGS */ \
> - { 0x001ff000, 0x, 0x }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
> + { 0x001fd000, 0x, 0x }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
>{ 0xff90, 0x, 0x }, /* JIRL_REGS */\
>{ 0xfffc, 0x, 0x }, /* CSR_REGS */ \
>{ 0x, 0x, 0x }, /* GR_REGS */ \
>
> Or even if LARCH_PROLOGUE_TEMP is less preferred, the register allocator may
> still use it for sibcall and blow something up again.
>
This solved my doubt. ^v^
[Bug tree-optimization/106106] SRA scalarizes structure copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106106 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- FWIW, I agree with Richard that this seems like something that should be fixed in RTL. In some ways it's the opposite of what lower-subreg does: whereas lower-subreg is a bit like SRA for RTL, the new pass would try to consolidate fields of individual registers. I think it's the lack of this consolidation that also causes unnecessary moves for TBL2, etc., in autovectorised code. Not thought about this much, but I think there would be two parts to it: (1) Look for a pseudo P that always tracks fields N-M of a multi-register pseudo MP. Replace all references to P with the associated subreg of MP. This goes against the normal practice of preferring plain regs to subregs, so should probably happen quite late (e.g. after combine). (2) Look for collections of subreg-to-subreg moves whose net effect is to move a multi-pseudo register MP1 to another multi-pseudo register MP2. Replace them with a direct move from MP1 to MP2. Consolidating multiple subreg moves into one bigger subreg move might also be useful, not sure.
[Bug c++/106111] New: -Wc++20-compat doesn't warn about using `requires` as an identifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106111 Bug ID: 106111 Summary: -Wc++20-compat doesn't warn about using `requires` as an identifier Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- int requires; Clang warns about this: r.C:1:5: warning: 'requires' is a keyword in C++20 [-Wc++20-compat] int requires; ^ 1 warning generated. GCC should do too. I wonder if we should warn about this by default (and suppress it if -Wno-c++20-compat is used). A keyword that is a common English word (unlike decltype, constexpr etc.) deserves a pretty big warning about compat with newer standards.
[Bug c++/106111] -Wc++20-compat doesn't warn about using `requires` as an identifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106111 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Looks like we don't warn about any keywords with any -Wc++NN-compat options: int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; GCC doesn't warn about any of these, Clang only warns about two: $ g++ -std=c++03 r.C -c -Wc++20-compat $ clang++ -std=c++03 r.C -c -Wc++20-compat r.C:1:26: warning: 'consteval' is a keyword in C++20 [-Wc++20-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:37: warning: 'requires' is a keyword in C++20 [-Wc++20-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ 2 warnings generated.
[Bug target/106097] undefined behaviors regarding integer shifts in loongarch_build_integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106097 --- Comment #11 from chenglulu --- > Otherwise LGTM. As the port maintainer you can push it directly into > master. Normally we should bootstrap and regtest before applying a patch, > but currently the bootstrap is blocked by PR106096 :(. Ok, I will submit patches in order.
[Bug c++/106111] -Wc++20-compat doesn't warn about using `requires` as an identifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106111 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh, that's because -Wc++20-compat doesn't include -Wc++17-compat etc. With the right options GCC warns about three: $ g++ -std=c++03 r.C -c -Wc++20-compat -Wc++11-compat -Wc++14-compat -Wc++17-compat r.C:1:5: warning: identifier ‘decltype’ is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] 1 | int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; | ^~~~ r.C:1:15: warning: identifier ‘constexpr’ is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] 1 | int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; | ^ r.C:1:47: warning: identifier ‘noexcept’ is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] 1 | int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; | ^~~~ We're missing warnings for alignof and alignas in C++11, and consteval and requires in C++20. Clang warns about them all: $ clang++ -std=c++03 r.C -c -Wc++20-compat -Wc++11-compat -Wc++14-compat -Wc++17-compat r.C:1:5: warning: 'decltype' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:15: warning: 'constexpr' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:26: warning: 'consteval' is a keyword in C++20 [-Wc++20-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:37: warning: 'requires' is a keyword in C++20 [-Wc++20-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:47: warning: 'noexcept' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:57: warning: 'alignof' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ r.C:1:66: warning: 'alignas' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] int decltype, constexpr, consteval, requires, noexcept, alignof, alignas; ^ 7 warnings generated.
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- Created attachment 53214 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53214&action=edit patch removing r13 from SIBCALL_REGS I'm testing this patch now. I suggest to apply this for trunk and gcc-12 branch first (as gcc-12 also miscompiles the test case). Then if the reordering of RA preference can improve performance, you may apply it later (and also adjust the changes in this patch again).
[Bug tree-optimization/106112] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106112
Bug ID: 106112
Summary: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
Target Milestone: ---
It appears to be a regression from 9.*, and affect 10.* and later.
[574] % gcctk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-sanitizers
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20220628 (experimental) [master r13-1313-gf9764ea128c] (GCC)
[575] %
[575] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[576] %
[576] % gcctk -Os small.c
[577] % ./a.out
Aborted
[578] %
[578] % cat small.c
int a = 5, b, c, d;
unsigned long e = 20862985922;
int main() {
unsigned f = 4294967292;
e = e | f;
c = -1 % ((~f ^ 4294967292) - (e - d));
b = ~-~e % ~-d;
if (b)
a = 0;
if (a < 1)
__builtin_abort();
return 0;
}
[Bug tree-optimization/106112] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106112 --- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su --- Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/v6qY9d6q6
[Bug target/106053] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-fre since r13-707-g68e0063397ba820e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106053 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3ca1fc5f409e257e9fb9a8165bb4a7068ddebbe commit r13-1317-ga3ca1fc5f409e257e9fb9a8165bb4a7068ddebbe Author: Richard Biener Date: Tue Jun 28 10:50:34 2022 +0200 middle-end/106053 - fold_sign_changed_comparison and large bools The following fixes a latent issue in the match.pd variant of fold_sign_changed_comparison which replaces an unsigned integer comparison with a signed boolean comparison of the same precision despite the fact that we treat BOOLEAN_TYPEs as only having two valid values. 2022-06-28 Richard Biener PR middle-end/106053 * match.pd ((T)a == (T)b): Avoid folding away sign changes in a comparison if we'd truncate to a boolean. * gcc.target/i386/pr106053.c: New testcase.
[Bug target/106113] New: wrong codegen for _mm_[u]comineq_{ss,sd} and need to return PF result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106113
Bug ID: 106113
Summary: wrong codegen for _mm_[u]comineq_{ss,sd} and need to
return PF result.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lingling.kong7 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/svoqvKs55
for _mm_ucomineq_ss,
according to the instruction description，
Operation
(V)UCOMISS (all versions)
RESULT := UnorderedCompare(DEST[31:0] <> SRC[31:0]) {
(* Set EFLAGS *) CASE (RESULT) OF
UNORDERED: ZF,PF,CF := 111;
GREATER_THAN: ZF,PF,CF := 000;
LESS_THAN: ZF,PF,CF := 001;
EQUAL: ZF,PF,CF := 100;
ESAC;
OF, AF, SF := 0; }
result need to set PF = 1,
but now generate code for `_mm_ucomineq_ss` is
# gcc -O3 -mavx512f
xorl%eax, %eax
vucomiss%xmm1, %xmm0
setne %al
ret
it ignore PF result, the codegen in llvm for this is correct.
We also could refer to the codegen in gcc for '_mm_comi_round_ss(__A, __B, 4,
_MM_FROUND_NO_EXC); '
[Bug target/106053] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-fre since r13-707-g68e0063397ba820e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106053 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Fixed on trunk.
[Bug target/106096] [13 regression] ICE building stage 2 libgcc on loongarch64-linux-gnu because stage 2 gcc is miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106096 --- Comment #10 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > Created attachment 53214 [details] > patch removing r13 from SIBCALL_REGS > > I'm testing this patch now. > > I suggest to apply this for trunk and gcc-12 branch first (as gcc-12 also > miscompiles the test case). > > Then if the reordering of RA preference can improve performance, you may > apply it later (and also adjust the changes in this patch again). OK!
[Bug preprocessor/8270] [10/11/12/13 Regression] back-slash white space newline with comments, no warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/12245] [10/11/12/13 regression] Uses lots of memory when compiling large initialized arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #81 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/14179] [10/11/12/13 Regression] out of memory while parsing array with many initializers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #88 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/18335] [10/11/12/13 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/debug/debug-1.c and debug-2 xyzzy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18335 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/18346] [10/11/12/13 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/trampoline-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18346 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/18501] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #100 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug preprocessor/20285] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc -E - < . gives a misleading error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20285 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/20617] [10/11/12/13 Regression] shared SH libgcc is exporting too many symbols
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20617 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/21161] [10/11/12/13 Regression] "clobbered by longjmp" warning ignores the data flow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/21343] [10/11/12/13 Regression] incompatible internal linkage declarations in different scopes not diagnosed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21343 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [10/11/12/13 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?88/9/10/11/12 suck
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #74 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/23144] [10/11/12/13 Regression] invalid parameter forward declarations not diagnosed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23144 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/23868] [10/11/12/13 regression] builtin_apply uses wrong mode for multi-hard-register return values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23868 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/24012] [10/11/12/13 regression] #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE breaks #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24012 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug preprocessor/24024] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc -E -C processes "\" incorrectly inside C comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24024 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/24434] [10/11/12/13 Regression] get_varargs_alias_set returns 0 always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24434 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug preprocessor/24976] [10/11/12/13 Regression] simple hexadecimal number and plus/minus and no space
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24976 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug driver/25208] [10/11/12/13 Regression] two outputs and -MMD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25208 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/26154] [10/11/12/13 Regression] OpenMP extensions to the C language is not documented or doumented in the wrong spot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug other/26966] [10/11/12/13 Regression] linking of C++/ObjC app fail on OpenBSD 3.9/10/11/12 due POSIX threading unresolved symbols
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26966 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/28831] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Aggregate copy not elided when using a return value as a pass-by-value parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/29256] [10/11/12/13 regression] loop performance regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #73 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32643 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/33699] [10/11/12/13 regression] missing optimization on const addr area store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33699 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/34723] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Summing variable should be initialized to the first member before the loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34723 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug testsuite/36443] [10/11/12/13 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work with installed gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36443 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #70 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/37916] [10/11/12/13 Regression] SSA names causing register pressure; unnecessarily many simultaneously "live" names.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37916 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/38059] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/38134] [10/11/12/13 Regression] speed regression with many loop invariants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38134 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [10/11/12/13 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #57 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/39725] [10/11/12/13 Regression][cond-optab] MIPS pessimizations on floating-point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39725 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug fortran/42954] [10/11/12/13 regression] TARGET_*_CPP_BUILTINS issues with gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/43798] [10/11/12/13 Regression] attribute((aligned(x))) not honored for array element types?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43798 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/44793] [10/11/12/13 Regression] libgcc does not include t-ppccomm on rtems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44793 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/45273] [10/11/12/13 Regression] The compiler depends on the host double (-fprofile-corection only)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45273 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/46393] [10/11/12/13 Regression] m68k code size regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46393 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/46555] [10/11/12/13 Regression] PHI RTL expansion leads to CSiBE regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46555 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/47344] [10/11/12/13 Regression][meta-bug] GCC gets slower and uses more memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug debug/47471] [10/11/12/13 Regression] stdarg functions extraneous too-early prologue end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/47481] [10/11/12/13 Regression] spill failure with -O2 -msoft-float on Ada RTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47481 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/49442] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Misaligned store support pessimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49442 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/49826] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Symbols are not decorated with attribute stdcall and -mrtd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49826 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug bootstrap/50229] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10/11/12 from x86_64-redhat_linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/50417] [10/11/12/13 regression]: memcpy with known alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/51017] [10/11/12/13 Regression] GCC performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE/LIM increase register pressure too much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug testsuite/51097] [10/11/12/13 Regression] a lot of "FAIL: gcc.dg/vect" on i688/9/10/11/12 avx build 181168/9/10/11/12 to 181177
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51097 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/52285] [10/11/12/13 Regression] libgcrypt _gcry_burn_stack slowdown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [10/11/12/13 regression] vectorization causes loop unrolling test slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/53932] [10/11/12/13 Regression] C++ reference variable to member of anonymous union in global is error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53932 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/54063] [10/11/12/13 regression] on powerpc64 gcc 4.9/8 generates larger code for global variable accesses than gcc 4.7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/54699] [10/11/12/13 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/55181] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Expensive shift loop where a bit-testing instruction could be used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Botan performance regressions, other compilers generate better code than gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/55428] [10/11/12/13 Regression] -mms-bitfields hides -mno-align-double option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55428 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug rtl-optimization/56451] [10/11/12/13 regression] Wrong code for gcc.c-torture/execute/941015-1.c on SH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56451 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug ipa/57218] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Excessive inlining even at -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug libgcc/57221] [10/11/12/13 regression] libgcc symbol visibility changes break Android blobs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57221 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/57534] [10/11/12/13 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/57955] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Uniquization of constants reduces alignment of initializers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug debug/58479] [10/11/12/13 Regression] slow var-tracking on x86_64-linux at -O1 (and above) with -g, but checking disabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/58646] [10/11 Regression] ICE on a multidimensional VLA with an empty initializer list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/59173] [10/11 Regression] Alias template in partial specialization finds name from primary template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/59371] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Performance regression in GCC 4.8/9/10/11/12 and later versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug go/59431] [10/11/12/13 regression] runtime FAILs on Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/59498] [DR 1430][10/11/12/13 Regression] Pack expansion error in template alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/59967] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Performance regression from 4.7.x to 4.8.x (loop not unrolled)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug fortran/60576] [10/11/12/13 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug debug/61014] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gdb can't find symbol of derived data type array in nested subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/61118] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c++/61259] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Spurious "ISO C++ forbids zero-size array" warning with -pedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug fortran/61527] [10/11/12/13 Regression] [OOP] class/extends, multiple generic assignment, accept invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61527 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/61577] [10/11/12/13 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #278 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug target/61593] Support '#pragma mark - foo' on non-Darwin targets (by simply ignoring it without warning)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61593 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug tree-optimization/62630] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/vect-pr43423.c XFAILed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/63311] [10/11/12/13 Regression] -O1 optimization introduces valgrind warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug c/63326] whether a #pragma is a statement depends on the type of pragma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug debug/63572] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICF breaks user debugging experience
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
