[Bug tree-optimization/111906] New: ICE: segfault during GIMPLE pass: dom in gsi_prev() testsuite torture/bitint-39.c with -O1 (expensive tests)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111906
Bug ID: 111906
Summary: ICE: segfault during GIMPLE pass: dom in gsi_prev()
testsuite torture/bitint-39.c with -O1 (expensive
tests)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Strange ICE does not happen with -O{0,2,3,s,g} or with "-O1 -save-temps",
testcase does not reduce.
$ GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=yes make -k check-gcc-c
RUNTESTFLAGS="dg-torture.exp=bitint-39.c"
Running /data/gcc_trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/dg-torture.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/bitint-39.c -O1 (internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/bitint-39.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes12
# of unexpected failures2
# of unresolved testcases 1
/tmp/build/gcc/xgcc version 14.0.0 20231021 (experimental) [master
r14-4812-g66c26e5cfdf] (GCC)
$ valgrind --track-origins=yes ./gcc/cc1
/data/gcc_trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-39.c
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -O1
bar t115_1add t115_2add t115_3add t115_4add t115_5add t115add t116_1add
t116_2add t116_3add t116_4add t116_5add t116add t117_1add t117_2add t117_3add
t117_4add t117_5add t117add t118_1add t118_2add t118_3add t118_4add t118_5add
t118add t119_1add t119_2add t119_3add t119_4add t119_5add t119add t120_1add
t120_2add t120_3add t120_4add t120_5add t120add t121_1add t121_2add t121_3add
t121_4add t121_5add t121add t122_1add t122_2add t122_3add t122_4add t122_5add
t122add t123_1add t123_2add t123_3add t123_4add t123_5add t123add t124_1add
t124_2add t124_3add t124_4add t124_5add t124add t100_1add t100_2add t100_3add
t100_4add t100_5add t100add t101_1add t101_2add t101_3add t101_4add t101_5add
t101add t102_1sub t102_2sub t102_3sub t102_4sub t102_5sub t102sub t103_1sub
t103_2sub t103_3sub t103_4sub t103_5sub t103sub t104_1mul t104_2mul t104_3mul
t104_4mul t104_5mul t104mul t105_1mul t105_2mul t105_3mul t105_4mul t105_5mul
t105mul t106_1mul t106_2mul t106_3mul t106_4mul t106_5mul t106mul t107_1add
t107_2add t107_3add t107_4add t107_5add t107add t108_1add t108_2add t108_3add
t108_4add t108_5add t108add t109_1add t109_2add t109_3add t109_4add t109_5add
t109add t110_1sub t110_2sub t110_3sub t110_4sub t110_5sub t110sub t111_1add
t111_2add t111_3add t111_4add t111_5add t111add t112_1add t112_2add t112_3add
t112_4add t112_5add t112add t113_1add t113_2add t113_3add t113_4add t113_5add
t113add t114_1add t114_2add t114_3add t114_4add t114_5add t114add main
Analyzing compilation unit
Performing interprocedural optimizations
<*free_lang_data> {heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0
} {heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0
} {heap 0 }Streaming LTO
{heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0 }
{heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0 }
{heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0 } {heap 0
}Assembling functions:
{heap 0 } bar t115_1add t115_2add t115_3add t115_4add t115_5add
t115add t116_1add t116_2add t116_3add t116_4add t116_5add t116add t117_1add {GC
released 1080k} {GC 5369k -> 3189k} t117_2add t117_3add t117_4add t117_5add
t117add t118_1add t118_2add t118_3add t118_4add t118_5add t118add t119_1add
t119_2add t119_3add t119_4add t119_5add t119add t120_1add t120_2add {GC
released 1932k madv_dontneed 64k} {GC 5354k -> 3100k} t120_3add t120_4add
t120_5add t120add t121_1add t121_2add t121_3add t121_4add t121_5add t121add
t122_1add t122_2add t122_3add t122_4add t122_5add t122add t123_1add t123_2add
{GC released 2044k} {GC 5347k -> 2993k} t123_3add t123_4add t123_5add t123add
t124_1add t124_2add t124_3add t124_4add t124_5add t124add t100_1add t100_2add
t100_3add t100_4add t100_5add t100add t101_1add t101_2add t101_3add t101_4add
t101_5add t101add t102_1sub t102_2sub t102_3sub t102_4sub t102_5sub t102sub
t103_1sub t103_2sub t103_3sub t103_4sub t103_5sub t103sub t104_1mul t104_2mul
t104_3mul t104_4mul t104_5mul {GC released 1988k} {GC 5325k -> 2670k}==82656==
Invalid read of size 8
==82656==at 0x11568B4: gsi_prev (gimple-iterator.h:202)
==82656==by 0x11568B4:
dom_opt_dom_walker::before_dom_children(basic_block_def*)
(tree-ssa-dom.cc:1764)
==82656==by 0x1E2B86E: dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*) (domwalk.cc:311)
==82656==by 0x1157278: (anonymous
namespace)::pass_dominator::execute(function*) (tree-ssa-dom.cc:939)
==82656==by 0xEF2628: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2641)
==82656==by 0xEF2EAF: execute_pass_list_1(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2750)
==82656==by 0xEF2EC1: execute_pass_list_1(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2751)
==82656==by 0xEF2EE8: execute_pass_list(function*, opt_pass*)
(passes.cc:2761)
==82656==by 0xB1F345: expand (cgraphunit.cc:1841)
==82656==by 0xB1F345: cgraph_node::expand() (cgraph
[Bug target/111907] New: ICE: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.cc:4294 unable to generate reloads for: {*andnottf3} with -mavx512f -mno-evex512 -mbionic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
Bug ID: 111907
Summary: ICE: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.cc:4294 unable to generate reloads
for: {*andnottf3} with -mavx512f -mno-evex512 -mbionic
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zsojka at seznam dot cz
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Created attachment 56165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56165&action=edit
reduced testcase
Compiler output:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -mavx512f -mno-evex512 -mbionic testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'foo':
testcase.c:5:1: error: unable to generate reloads for:
5 | }
| ^
(insn 14 13 15 2 (set (reg:TF 104)
(and:TF (not:TF (reg:TF 103))
(reg:TF 99 [ _2 ]))) "testcase.c":4:10 3138 {*andnottf3}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:TF 99 [ _2 ])
(nil)))
during RTL pass: reload
testcase.c:5:1: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.cc:4294
0x7eee43 _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
const*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/rtl-error.cc:108
0x7a8d79 curr_insn_transform
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:4294
0x12cea56 lra_constraints(bool)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:5497
0x12b7ae4 lra(_IO_FILE*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/lra.cc:2419
0x1266d99 do_reload
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/ira.cc:5973
0x1266d99 execute
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/ira.cc:6161
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-amd64/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-trunk-r14-4813-20231021102502-g57cbb1d3344-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/14.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /repo/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-valgrind-annotations --disable-nls --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df,extra
--disable-bootstrap --with-cloog --with-ppl --with-isl
--build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-4813-20231021102502-g57cbb1d3344-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20231021 (experimental) (GCC)
[Bug target/111905] -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 --- Comment #3 from Kamil Kaznowski --- Created attachment 56166 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56166&action=edit a smaller example A smaller example. Compilation flags: -O2 -march=x86-64-v3 -std=c++23 vs -O3 -march=x86-64-v3 -std=c++23
[Bug target/111905] -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 --- Comment #4 from Kamil Kaznowski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Why are you using `-mprefer-vector-width=512` here? > > 512 causes the loop to be needing to be unrolled once more and that is why > the confusion happening. I don't think the preferred vector width mattered there? The vector width used was already 512 (zmm registers). I created a simpler example, no extra flags affecting preferred vector width, chunks of 256 bit (8*32bit). Still the same issue appears - a lot of weirdly-unrolled code, that I presume (hope?) is dead + some extra code at the start I can't quite figure out.
[Bug tree-optimization/80532] warning on pointer access after free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532 --- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #9) > The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6 > > commit r12-6605-g671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6 > Author: Martin Sebor > Date: Sat Jan 15 16:37:54 2022 -0700 > [...snip...] > libiberty/ChangeLog: > > * regex.c: Suppress -Wuse-after-free. Was this part necessary? I'm wondering if it might be covering up an actual error that I'm seeing on CheriBSD on cfarm240...
[Bug target/111908] New: Port CheriBSD-specific compiler warnings to GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111908 Bug ID: 111908 Summary: Port CheriBSD-specific compiler warnings to GCC Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build, diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org CC: jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com Blocks: 44756, 87403 Target Milestone: --- Target: CheriBSD The GCC compile farm has a CheriBSD machine, cfarm240, where the C/C++ memory rules are stricter than normal. CheriBSD modifications to C/C++ are described in the CHERI C/C++ Programming Guide: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-947.pdf The document outlines a number of warnings that their compiler has for code that will break on CheriBSD, specifically: - -Wcheri-prototypes (kinda like -Wstrict-prototypes) - -Wcheri-capability-misuse (kinda like -Wint-to-pointer-cast and -Wpointer-to-int-cast; says something like "warning: cast from provenance-free integer type to pointer type will give pointer that can not be dereferenced") - -Wcheri-provenance (says something like "warning: binary expression on capability types; it is not clear which should be used as the source of provenance") Note that some of these warnings will show up in a build of GCC itself, and will cause the build to fail if configured with --enable-werror --enable-werror-always. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756 [Bug 44756] [meta-bug] --enable-werror-always issues https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403 [Bug 87403] [Meta-bug] Issues that suggest a new warning
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- I'm on it.
[Bug c++/110848] Consider enabling -Wvla by default in non-GNU C++ modes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848 --- Comment #13 from Aaron Ballman --- Just to circle back around on this topic, these are changes recently landed in Clang: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/84a3aadf0f2483dde0acfc4e79f2a075a5f35bd1 It enables the -Wvla-extension diagnostic group in C++ language modes by default, adds the warning group to -Wall in GNU++ language modes, and the warning is still opt-in in C language modes.
[Bug ada/111909] New: Filename case sensitivity defaulted wrongly on macOS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111909 Bug ID: 111909 Summary: Filename case sensitivity defaulted wrongly on macOS Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: simon at pushface dot org CC: dkm at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 56167 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56167&action=edit Demo of code to determine case sensitivity In gcc/ada/adaint.c(__gnat_get_file_names_case_sensitive), the assumption for __APPLE__ is that file names are case-insensitive unless __arm__ or __arm64__ are defined, in which case file names are declared case-sensitive. The associated comment is "By default, we suppose filesystems aren't case sensitive on Windows and Darwin (but they are on arm-darwin)." This change was made in commit b54d1d39d30c (in github gcc-mirror). This means that on aarch64-apple-darwin, file names are declared case-sensitive. I understand that GCC does not currently support iOS/tvOS/watchOS, so we could assume macOS. On macOS, the default filesystem is case-insensitive; changing this function to reflect that would be an improvement. However, it's possible to create case-sensitive filesystems, and some users do when dealing with OSS code. It would be good to check the actual filesystem in use.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- I'm trying to remove the formal_arg_flag global variables, which seem to just disable all the checks on dummy arguments. Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be simplified to this: SUBROUTINE PASSB4 (CC,CH) DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) END which gives: pr101026.f:4:19: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:33: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:25: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:37: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) What I don't see is what makes the IDO and L1 variables acceptable in a specification expression. It seems to me the errors above are valid.
[Bug c/111903] [14 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc:567 with -mno-sse2 and _Float16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111903 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma ||il/gcc-patches/2023-October ||/633840.html Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633840.html
[Bug fortran/111837] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Out of bounds access with optimization inside io-implied-do-control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111837 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83907b9fad802a5c38ed4ca75d9415b8f57f619 commit r13-7972-gc83907b9fad802a5c38ed4ca75d9415b8f57f619 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Mon Oct 16 21:02:20 2023 +0200 Fortran: out of bounds access with nested implied-do IO [PR111837] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * frontend-passes.cc (traverse_io_block): Dependency check of loop nest shall be triangular, not banded. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_8.f90: New test. (cherry picked from commit 5ac63ec5da2e93226457bea4dbb3a4f78d5d82c2)
[Bug fortran/111837] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Out of bounds access with optimization inside io-implied-do-control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111837 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d4d191e03d102d5afeb4b091e947560351004c3 commit r12-9934-g4d4d191e03d102d5afeb4b091e947560351004c3 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Mon Oct 16 21:02:20 2023 +0200 Fortran: out of bounds access with nested implied-do IO [PR111837] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * frontend-passes.cc (traverse_io_block): Dependency check of loop nest shall be triangular, not banded. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_8.f90: New test. (cherry picked from commit 5ac63ec5da2e93226457bea4dbb3a4f78d5d82c2)
[Bug fortran/111837] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Out of bounds access with optimization inside io-implied-do-control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111837 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b569e0a1cf79519eea2e62422232c8d2d483f07 commit r11-11071-g9b569e0a1cf79519eea2e62422232c8d2d483f07 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Mon Oct 16 21:02:20 2023 +0200 Fortran: out of bounds access with nested implied-do IO [PR111837] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * frontend-passes.c (traverse_io_block): Dependency check of loop nest shall be triangular, not banded. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/111837 * gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_8.f90: New test. (cherry picked from commit 5ac63ec5da2e93226457bea4dbb3a4f78d5d82c2)
[Bug fortran/111837] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Out of bounds access with optimization inside io-implied-do-control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111837 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/111910] New: `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111910 Bug ID: 111910 Summary: `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: FIXME, missed-optimization Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- >From match.pd: /* Transform comparisons of the form X - Y CMP 0 to X CMP Y. ??? The transformation is valid for the other operators if overflow is undefined for the type, but performing it here badly interacts with the transformation in fold_cond_expr_with_comparison which attempts to synthetize ABS_EXPR. */ I am looking into that fix that for either GCC 14 or 15.
[Bug target/111908] Port CheriBSD-specific compiler warnings to GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111908 --- Comment #1 from Jessica Clarke --- NB: Arm have a vendor branch for Morello (intended to be generic across CHERI with a Morello-specific backend, rather than overly tied to the Morello prototype) at refs/vendors/ARM/heads/morello. I have no experience of it, and it's less mature than our decade-old Clang/LLVM, but it purports to both add CHERI C diagnostics and introduce Morello code generation. They are tied together, as they are in our Clang/LLVM, but there's no reason one couldn't port some of the diagnostics to non-CHERI and warn people that they're doing things outside of ISO (or even GNU) C, even if they happen to work on those architectures, though disambiguating intptr_t vs ((un)signed) long (long) (or even int on ILP32) may not be feasible given that *is* very much OK on ILP32/LP64/LLP64.
[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2004-June/140297.html for reference where the original idea came from.
[Bug tree-optimization/111910] `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111910 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2023-10-21 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- .
[Bug tree-optimization/111910] `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111910
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is:
```
int f(int a, int b)
{
if (a > b) return a - b; else return b - a;
}
int fa(int a, int b)
{
return (a > b) ? (a - b) : (b - a);
}
int f1(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
if (a > b) return t; else return -t;
}
int f2(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
if (t > 0) return t; else return -t;
}
int f3a(int a, int b)
{
return ((a - b) > 0) ? (a - b) : (b - a);
}
int f3(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
return t > 0 ? t : -t;
}
```
All are detected as ABS<(a-b)> .
Right now only f3a and f3 are detected as such.
[Bug tree-optimization/111910] `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111910
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also this:
```
int f(int a, int b)
{
if (a < b) return a - b; else return b - a;
}
int fa(int a, int b)
{
return (a < b) ? (a - b) : (b - a);
}
int f1(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
if (a < b) return t; else return -t;
}
int f2(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
if (t < 0) return t; else return -t;
}
int f3a(int a, int b)
{
return ((a - b) < 0) ? (a - b) : ( b - a);
}
int f3(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
return t < 0 ? t : -t;
}
```
(note clang misses on the above for f and fa [f1 on x86_64]).
[Bug ada/111909] Filename case sensitivity defaulted wrongly on macOS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111909 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- Cross-referencing against some related issues: https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64/issues/101 Bug 81114
[Bug target/65250] [SH] Improve comparisons followed by a negated cstore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65250 --- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo --- Briefly checked this one on GCC-13. It generates the optimal sequence.
[Bug c/111911] New: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:17510
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911
Bug ID: 111911
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: internal compiler
error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:17510
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
Target Milestone: ---
When compile this program, GCC crashes:
```
int main(void) {
if !((_Bool)(__INT_MAX__ + 1))) /
(!((_Bool)(__INT_MAX__ + 1))
;
return 1;
}
```
Complier Explorer: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/W59roeYKP
The full stack dump:
```
: In function 'main':
:2:32: warning: integer overflow in expression of type 'int' results in
'-2147483648' [-Woverflow]
2 | if !((_Bool)(__INT_MAX__ + 1))) /
|^
:3:34: warning: integer overflow in expression of type 'int' results in
'-2147483648' [-Woverflow]
3 | (!((_Bool)(__INT_MAX__ + 1))
| ^
cc1: warning: division by zero [-Wdiv-by-zero]
:2:10: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:17510
2 | if !((_Bool)(__INT_MAX__ + 1))) /
| ^
0x231f49e internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0xa00958 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
???:0
0xdbb856 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb3dc gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb856 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb3dc gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb3dc gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbbf48 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbcc33 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbbcdf gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbcc33 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdc0cd3 gimplify_body(tree_node*, bool)
???:0
0xdc112f gimplify_function_tree(tree_node*)
???:0
0xbea6e7 cgraph_node::analyze()
???:0
0xbee231 symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit()
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug c/111912] New: GCC: 14: internal compile error when apply __transaction_atomic on logical or expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111912
Bug ID: 111912
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compile error when apply
__transaction_atomic on logical or expr
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
Target Milestone: ---
When compile this small program:
```
int a;
int f() { return __transaction_atomic (a || 1); }
```
GCC crashes, (verification link: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/8onMYzqcv)
The full stack dump:
```
: In function 'f':
:2:40: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:17510
2 | int f() { return __transaction_atomic (a || 1); }
|^
0x231f49e internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0xa00958 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
???:0
0xdbb3dc gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbbf48 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbcc33 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbbf48 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbbf48 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb78d gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbbcdf gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbdddb gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbb78d gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbc9b7 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
0xdbec8a gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
???:0
0xdbbcdf gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug c/111911] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with integer overflow converting to _Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.1.0, 8.4.0, ||9.3.0, 9.4.0 Target Milestone|--- |11.5 Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Known to work||7.1.0, 8.3.0, 9.1.0, 9.2.0 Summary|GCC: 14: internal compiler |[11/12/13/14 Regression] |error: internal compiler|ICE with integer overflow |error: in gimplify_expr, at |converting to _Bool |gimplify.cc:17510 |
[Bug c/111911] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with integer overflow converting to _Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-22 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- .
[Bug c/111913] New: GCC: 14: -O1 compile __builtin_popcount fails while -O0 succeeds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111913
Bug ID: 111913
Summary: GCC: 14: -O1 compile __builtin_popcount fails while
-O0 succeeds
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
Target Milestone: ---
When compile this program with `-O1`, gcc crashes:
```
int f(unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
return __builtin_popcount (x&y) + __builtin_popcount (y|x--);
}
```
If change the optimization level to `-O0`, then nothing happens.
Compiler Explorer: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/naoebKMor
The stack dump:
```
: In function 'f':
:4:1: error: invalid conversion in gimple call
4 | }
| ^
unsigned int
int
_3 = __builtin_popcount (x_6(D));
:4:1: error: invalid conversion in gimple call
unsigned int
int
_11 = __builtin_popcount (y_7(D));
:4:1: error: type mismatch in binary expression
int
unsigned int
unsigned int
_9 = _3 + _11;
during GIMPLE pass: forwprop
:4:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0x231f49e internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x1164659 verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool, bool)
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug c/111911] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with integer overflow converting to _Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- A c_maybe_const_expr is there still for this.
[Bug c/111914] New: GCC: 14: ICE when function pointer array as arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111914
Bug ID: 111914
Summary: GCC: 14: ICE when function pointer array as arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
Target Milestone: ---
Compiler Explorer: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Yn354q5zP
When compile this program with `-O0`, gcc crashes:
```
__attribute__((always_inline))
void f(int n, int (*a())[n]) {
}
void g(void)
{
int (*a())[1];
f(1, a);
}
```
Interestingly, `-O1` or above do not trigger the crash.
The full stack dump:
```
:2:6: warning: 'always_inline' function might not be inlinable
[-Wattributes]
2 | void f(int n, int (*a())[n]) {
| ^
: In function 'g':
:9:1: error: type mismatch between an SSA_NAME and its symbol
9 | }
| ^
:9:1: error: type mismatch between an SSA_NAME and its symbol
while verifying SSA_NAME a_4 in statement
a_4 = a;
during GIMPLE pass: einline
:9:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
0x231f49e internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x139c15e verify_ssa(bool, bool)
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug c/111911] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with integer overflow converting to _Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=93348, ||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=93241 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect it started with PR 93241 (and is very similar to PR 93348).
[Bug c/111911] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with integer overflow converting to _Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111911 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > I suspect it started with PR 93241 (and is very similar to PR 93348). (_Bool) <<< Unknown tree: c_maybe_const_expr 1 >>> == 0) So maybe remove_c_maybe_const_expr needs to be called always instead of just on "argument with integer operands".
[Bug c/111914] ICE with function pointer array as argument with non-constant size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0
Keywords||ice-checking,
||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|GCC: 14: ICE when function |ICE with function pointer
|pointer array as argument |array as argument with
||non-constant size
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, goes back to before GCC 7, maybe before (-fchecking only exist in
GCC 7+).
Slightly better testcase:
```
__attribute__((always_inline))
static inline void f(int n, int (*a())[n]) {
}
void g(void)
{
int (*a())[1];
f(1, a);
}
```
[Bug tree-optimization/111913] [14 Regression] ICE with __builtin_popcount(X) + __builtin_popcount(Y) simplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111913 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ||needs-bisection Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|GCC: 14: -O1 compile|[14 Regression] ICE with |__builtin_popcount fails|__builtin_popcount(X) + |while -O0 succeeds |__builtin_popcount(Y) ||simplification Last reconfirmed||2023-10-22 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed. So the simplification was being done in GCC 13 but the type was correct there.
[Bug c/111912] GCC: 14: internal compile error when apply __transaction_atomic on logical or expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111912 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail||4.7.1 Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Last reconfirmed||2023-10-22 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed. Not a regression.
[Bug c/111915] New: GCC: ICEs on a program with __restrict and option `-O2 -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111915
Bug ID: 111915
Summary: GCC: ICEs on a program with __restrict and option `-O2
-fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
Target Milestone: ---
When compile this program, GCC crashes:
```
void
foo (int * __restrict a, int * __restrict b, int * __restrict w)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
{
*a += w[2*i+0];
*b += w[2*i&1];
}
}
int main()
{
int w[32];
int a = 0, b = 0;
foo (&a, b, w);
return 0;
}
```
Compiler Explorer: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/8oYjE3e9j
The crash seems to be triggered solely under specific conditions: when the
-fno-tree-vrp, -fno-tree-dominator-opts, and -fno-tree-ccp options are enabled,
in conjunction with an optimization level of -O2 or higher. However, I'm
uncertain whether this combination of settings violates on any internal
conventions or requirements tied to these options.
The full stack dump:
```
: In function 'main':
:15:12: warning: passing argument 2 of 'foo' makes pointer from integer
without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
15 | foo (&a, b, w);
|^
||
|int
:2:43: note: expected 'int * restrict' but argument is of type 'int'
2 | foo (int * __restrict a, int * __restrict b, int * __restrict w)
| ~^
: In function 'foo':
:2:1: error: definition in block 3 follows the use
2 | foo (int * __restrict a, int * __restrict b, int * __restrict w)
| ^~~
for SSA_NAME: _12 in statement:
vect_cst__35 = {_12, _12, _12, _12};
during GIMPLE pass: vect
:2:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
0x231f49e internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x139c15e verify_ssa(bool, bool)
???:0
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug target/65250] [SH] Improve comparisons followed by a negated cstore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |8.0 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Fixed for GCC by r8-2701-g9dc3d6a96167b4c84824be5e472fba4956297033 . Basically the gimple level is able to optimize that directly to: _1 = (unsigned int) value_3(D); _5 = _1 <= 2; No reason to try to have combine optimize it any more.
[Bug tree-optimization/111915] [14 Regression] ICE in vect with option `-O2 -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111915 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-22 Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords||needs-bisection Summary|GCC: ICEs on a program with |[14 Regression] ICE in vect |__restrict and option `-O2 |with option `-O2 |-fno-tree-vrp |-fno-tree-vrp |-fno-tree-dominator-opts|-fno-tree-dominator-opts |-fno-tree-ccp` |-fno-tree-ccp` --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed.
[Bug tree-optimization/111915] [14 Regression] ICE in vect with option `-O2 -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111915 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Maybe one of richi's recent SLP related patches: GCC 13: /app/example.cpp:5:21: missed: Build SLP failed: not grouped load _12 = *_11; /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: SLP discovery for node 0x4cdbb68 failed /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: SLP discovery for node 0x4cdbae8 failed /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: SLP discovery failed But GCC 14: /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: Build SLP for _6 = *_5; /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: precomputed vectype: vector(4) int /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: nunits = 4 /app/example.cpp:5:21: note: SLP discovery for node 0x4802428 succeeded
[Bug tree-optimization/111915] [14 Regression] ICE in vect with option `-O2 -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111915 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note the reasoning for the extra options is still get: _2 = i_26 * 2; _23 = _2 & 1; _9 = (long unsigned int) _23; In the IR. Otherwise _23 would be 0.
[Bug tree-optimization/111910] `a - b < 0` is not transformed into `a < b` for signed types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111910 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||50856 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually the `a < b ? (a - b) : (b - a)` is the first example in PR 50856. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856 [Bug 50856] ARM: suboptimal code for absolute difference calculation
[Bug c++/110848] Consider enabling -Wvla by default in non-GNU C++ modes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848 --- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager --- Oh right, if we're considering changing things for plain-C here, too, then maybe have it enabled by -Wc++-compat there?
[Bug c++/110848] Consider enabling -Wvla by default in non-GNU C++ modes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848 --- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #14) > Oh right, if we're considering changing things for plain-C here, too, then > maybe have it enabled by -Wc++-compat there? Or rather, for plain-C modes, where "XY" is 99 or newer: -std=cXY: enabled by -Wc++-compat -std=gnuXY: still completely opt-in; -Wvla must be enabled explicitly (and then for the pre-c99 modes, well, I guess they'd just keep their current behavior)
[Bug tree-optimization/111916] New: wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111916
Bug ID: 111916
Summary: wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (the
generated code hangs)
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: ---
This appears to be a recent regression.
Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/aEEKbdY6E
[563] % 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/14.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20231022 (experimental) (GCC)
[564] %
[564] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[565] %
[565] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[566] % timeout -s 9 5 ./a.out
Killed
[567] %
[567] % cat small.c
#pragma pack(1)
struct A {
int b : 4;
int c : 11;
int d : 2;
int e : 5;
} f;
int main() {
struct A g = {1, 1, 1, 1};
while (!g.b)
f = g;
return 0;
}
