[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #14 from Zdenek Sojka --- Thank you all for looking into this! I can't provide testcases for other issues, if they exist at all, since I am hitting the first one too often. If you fix only the first issue, there is a chance the other

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #13 from Jim Wilson --- I see 5 broken patterns which matches the list already given. The four testcases are all triggering on the same splitter, which is the first define_split, lshrsi3_zero_extend_3+1. The second define_split, lsh

[Bug target/91474] Internal compiler error when building mabi=32 mips64-elf cross-compiler: segfault in parallel_settings.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91474 Paul Hua changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 f

[Bug regression/91654] New: Regressions of SPEC2017 rate caused by r274994

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91654 Bug ID: 91654 Summary: Regressions of SPEC2017 rate caused by r274994 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: reg

[Bug libstdc++/91653] New: ostream::operator<<(streambuf*) should fail the ostream when write output stream error but not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653 Bug ID: 91653 Summary: ostream::operator<<(streambuf*) should fail the ostream when write output stream error but not Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/91593] Implicit enum conversions in libgfortran/io/transfer.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/86393] GCC-8 appears to not detect AVX512 on iMac Pro 2018

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393 --- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe --- does this problem still exist? Please can you give me the exact processor type? in terminal: sysctl -a |grep cpu and find the actual intel part number. === It looks to me like there could be a misinterpre

[Bug fortran/91642] ICE: Bad IO basetype (transfer_expr, at fortran/trans-io.c:2507)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91642 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/91642] ICE: Bad IO basetype (transfer_expr, at fortran/trans-io.c:2507)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91642 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug libfortran/91593] Implicit enum conversions in libgfortran/io/transfer.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/71453] Spills to vector registers are sub-optimal.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |NEW CC|izamyatin at gmail dot

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 --- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #13) > These functions have to be expanded inline, unconditionally; there are no > library functions they can reliably fall back on in general. Ugh, y

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 --- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #12) > > but we should really handle this with some non-signaling insns, not punt > > it to libm to do. > > Well we should simply commit Tamar's patch again since it wor

[Bug c++/91644] [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek

[Bug target/91615] [10 regression][armeb] ICEs since r274986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615 --- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger --- Hi Christophe, many thanks for your invaluable help. I think except this one all regressions are fixed or at least understood. Unfortunately I have a bit of trouble to reproduce this could you please give

[Bug target/91652] -march=skylake-avx512 -mno-fma -O2 generates FMA instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91652 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/91504] Inlining misses some logical operation folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91504 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91504] Inlining misses some logical operation folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91504 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue Sep 3 20:13:22 2019 New Revision: 275354 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275354&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/91504 * match.pd: Add ((~a & b) ^a) --

[Bug target/91652] -march=skylake-avx512 -mno-fma -O2 generates FMA instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91652 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from

[Bug libfortran/91593] Implicit enum conversions in libgfortran/io/transfer.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug target/91652] New: -march=skylake-avx512 -mno-fma -O2 generates FMA instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91652 Bug ID: 91652 Summary: -march=skylake-avx512 -mno-fma -O2 generates FMA instructions Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 --- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- These functions have to be expanded inline, unconditionally; there are no library functions they can reliably fall back on in general.

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 --- Comment #12 from Wilco --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > I currently have > > === > diff --git a/gcc/builtins.c b/gcc/builtins.c > index ad5135c..bc3d318 100644 > --- a/gcc/builtins.c > +++ b/gcc/builtins.c > @@ -9050,6

[Bug fortran/91650] [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91650 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Assignee|unassign

[Bug pch/61250] Random pch failures with -save-temps on x86_64-apple-darwin1(3-8).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250 --- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Tue Sep 3 18:56:04 2019 New Revision: 275346 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275346&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [c-family] Backport fix for PCH / PR61250. When we are parsing a source fi

[Bug lto/63407] xsdcxx built with LTO aborts on xsd files of libkolabxml - when LTO is disabled problem is gone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63407 David Kredba changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug fortran/91650] [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91650 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/91651] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from G.

[Bug fortran/91651] New: ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651 Bug ID: 91651 Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11010 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug fortran/91650] New: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91650 Bug ID: 91650 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug fortran/91649] ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #1 from G

[Bug fortran/91649] New: ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 Bug ID: 91649 Summary: ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug fortran/91648] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648 Bug ID: 91648 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/91597] [9/10 Regression] GCC miscompiles a branch depending on a pointer tag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91597 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/91597] [9/10 Regression] GCC miscompiles a branch depending on a pointer tag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91597 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 3 16:55:31 2019 New Revision: 275345 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275345&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/91597 * tree-vrp.c (extract_range_fro

[Bug target/91604] [10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn at recog.c:2310 since r272323

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91604 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/91647] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647 --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3) > I get the following error when running a cross-compiler for > x86_64-apple-darwin: > > xgcc: error: unrecognized command-line option > '-asm_macosx_version_min=10.5

[Bug target/91604] [10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn at recog.c:2310 since r272323

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91604 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 3 16:46:06 2019 New Revision: 275344 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275344&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/91604 * config/i386/i386-expand.c (split_double_

[Bug tree-optimization/91647] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I get the following error when running a cross-compiler for x86_64-apple-darwin: xgcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '-asm_macosx_version_min=10.5'; did you mean '-asm_macosx_version_min='? Is ther

[Bug tree-optimization/91647] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10 Regression] new FAILs |new FAILs for |for Warra

[Bug tree-optimization/91647] [10 Regression] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Target||*-*-apple-darwin* Status|UNCON

[Bug tree-optimization/91647] New: [10 Regression] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647 Bug ID: 91647 Summary: [10 Regression] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and Wstringop-overflow-3.C Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91646] New: gfortran takes long time and consumes a lot of memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91646 Bug ID: 91646 Summary: gfortran takes long time and consumes a lot of memory Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug tree-optimization/91457] FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457 --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10) Yes, the warning is intended and Glibc was just patched to avoid it: https://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-cvs/2019-q3/msg00459.html (In reply to Iain Sandoe from co

[Bug tree-optimization/91457] FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457 --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --- it looks like Wstringop-overflow-3.C also started failing at the same time as Warray-bounds-8, presumably these are all connected.

[Bug fortran/91643] [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1265

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91643 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/91457] FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457 --- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe --- on Darwin, the Warray-bounds-4 is failing for c++98,14,17 Warray-bounds-8 has started failing between 274983 and 275034 with the same kind of pattern - I can file a new PR if you regard the second as distinct

[Bug c++/91645] New: Missed optimization with sqrt(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91645 Bug ID: 91645 Summary: Missed optimization with sqrt(x*x) Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/91613] [10 regression][arm] gcc.dg/pr83930.c ICE since r274986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91613 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019 New Revision: 275342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger PR middle-end/91603 PR m

[Bug middle-end/91603] Unaligned access in expand_assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019 New Revision: 275342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger PR middle-end/91603 PR m

[Bug middle-end/91612] [10 regression][arm] gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align4.c ICE after r274986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91612 --- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019 New Revision: 275342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger PR middle-end/91603 PR m

[Bug fortran/91640] [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/79543] Inappropriate "ld --version" checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79543 --- Comment #5 from Chung-Lin Tang --- Author: cltang Date: Tue Sep 3 14:10:26 2019 New Revision: 275341 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275341&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-03 Chung-Lin Tang libatomic/ PR other/79543

[Bug c++/91618] template-id required to friend a function template, even for a qualified-id

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- So the problem is in set_decl_namespace. We are called with decl=f, scope=::, friendp=true. It used to have - /* Writing "int N::i" to declare a variable within "N" is invalid. */ - if (scope == current

[Bug c++/91644] [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- I was afraid that that might happen. Mine.

[Bug c++/91644] [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug libstdc++/91308] [7 Regression] unique_ptr assignment fails with different deleters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed at r275296

[Bug middle-end/91612] [10 regression][arm] gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align4.c ICE after r274986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91612 --- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon --- > I don't know yet for pr91613 This patch fixes pr91613 too.

[Bug libstdc++/91308] [7 Regression] unique_ptr assignment fails with different deleters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/90278] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw, but doesn't)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90278 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug preprocessor/91639] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/location-overflow-test-pr83173.c -fplugin=./location_overflo w_plugin.so scan-file-not # (?!1 [^\r\n]+location-overflow-test-pr83173-1.h"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91639 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu | CC|

[Bug target/87767] Missing AVX512 memory broadcast for constant vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/91591] Arc: ICE in trunc_int_for_mode, at explow.c:60

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91591 --- Comment #3 from Giulio Benetti --- Created attachment 46805 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46805&action=edit Preprocessed file Here is .ii file obtained building with -save-temps.

[Bug c++/91644] [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/91644] [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Status|U

[Bug fortran/91588] ICE in check_inquiry, at fortran/expr.c:2673

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91588 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/91566] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91566 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91640] [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.3 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #12 from Kito Cheng --- Hi Zdenek: I can reproduce for all new 3 testcases, it seems like cause by same issue, thanks you provide more testcase for that!

[Bug preprocessor/91639] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/location-overflow-test-pr83173.c -fplugin=./location_overflo w_plugin.so scan-file-not # (?!1 [^\r\n]+location-overflow-test-pr83173-1.h"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91639 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

[Bug c++/91644] New: [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91644 Bug ID: 91644 Summary: [C++20] constinit segfaults inside templated functions Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #11 from Zdenek Sojka --- Created attachment 46803 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46803&action=edit another testcase

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka --- Created attachment 46802 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46802&action=edit another testcase

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka --- Created attachment 46801 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46801&action=edit another testcase

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Certainly both register_operand predicate as well as the usual register constraints don't rule out subregs even after reload. can_create_pseudo_p () is false after reload of course. In theory, what you could

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #7 from Kito Cheng --- Hi Jakub: > that doesn't mean paradoxical subregs can't appear there, just it will be > less likely. Does it mean paradoxical subregs will appear during intermediate result even after reload, so for such spli

[Bug target/87767] Missing AVX512 memory broadcast for constant vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767 Matthias Kretz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kretz at kde dot org --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Other problematic splitters are zero_extendsidi2, zero_extendhi2, extend2, dunno if I haven't missed something else. While they are all post-reload splitters, that doesn't mean paradoxical subregs can't appe

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng --- Hi Zdenek: Could you share more testcase? I've a patch is based on Jakub's one. Thanks :)

[Bug target/91481] POWER9 "DARN" RNG intrinsic produces repeated output (CVE-2019-15847)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0, 6.5.0, 7.4.1, 8.3.1,

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 --- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Looks like a backend bug to me. ... > fixes this, but I don't have a way to test riscv, plus the backend has > several similar problems elsewhere. I can provide s

[Bug tree-optimization/91597] [9/10 Regression] GCC miscompiles a branch depending on a pointer tag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91597 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 3 07:50:46 2019 New Revision: 275330 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275330&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/91597 * tree-vrp.c (extract_range_fro

[Bug middle-end/91433] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433 --- Comment #7 from George Fan --- echo $CFLAGS ( -g -O3 -feliminate-unused-debug-types -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=32 -Wformat -Wformat-security -m64 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wp

[Bug other/77609] __attribute__((section(".note.foo"))) forces SHT_PROGBITS though the assembler would use SHT_NOTE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77609 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91433] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433 --- Comment #6 from George Fan --- Created attachment 46800 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46800&action=edit botan regression

[Bug middle-end/91433] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433 --- Comment #5 from George Fan --- The test case is as follows Environment, CPU, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz * 12 cores with hyperthreading MEM, Dell Vostro 3670 8G DISK, nvme 256G OS, from clear linux 28950 to clear linux 29070 gcc,