https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #7 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Thanks for working on this. Per my experience, this is fast for gcc ;)
Are you sure about the smaller ones? To me they should not care about 64-bit
swaps, but clang lists them all as lane-sensitive:
https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24551
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Thomas De Schampheleire from comment #4)
> Could it not be that #14167 is now fixed after fixing #86964 ?
is bug 86964 actually fixed? It's still open...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91945
Bug ID: 91945
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:5837
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91936
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
Index: gcc/fortran/io.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/io.c(revision 276271)
+++ gcc/fortran/io.c(working copy)
@@ -1469,7 +1469,7 @@ match_vtag (con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91943
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks for the report! Sorry for taking so long to look at this. Swap
optimization treats vpmsumd as swappable, but unlike vpmsumb, vpmsumh, and
vpmsumw, it is not. Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91936
--- Comment #3 from Weiqiang Wu ---
Thanks, Jonathan.
The problem seems universal. I can replicate it with gcc 9.2.0 and glibc 2.27
through the following online compiler. ( https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/QXU8Wm )
When I switch to icc 19.0.1 there,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91944
Bug ID: 91944
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6156
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91943
Bug ID: 91943
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at
fortran/trans-const.c:370
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89012
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker ---
I think it's actually just a matter of removing the patterns for generating
bsrf, but I may be mistaken. Generating jsr should be what happens "by default"
in some sense if GCC just has to load the address, no?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
Bug ID: 91942
Summary: ICE in match_vtag, at fortran/io.c:1485
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91941
Bug ID: 91941
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor,
at fortran/trans-array.c:7336
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm, I tried it out and built gcc-9.2.0 out of the release tar ball,
with no checking flag
and, actually the test case still ICEs, just in a different
place:
$ gfortran -c z1.f90
z1.f90:5:0:
5 | en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918
--- Comment #3 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Mon Sep 30 17:40:02 2019
New Revision: 276360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: Remove code duplication in vec_unordered
vec_unordered is ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i opened a glibc bug
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25051
but i think this bug should be kept open for non *-linux*-gnu* targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:47:01PM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> Man, Steve, your memory is bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91937
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Then perhaps you want to use C++ instead of C?
The way the preprocessor works and the way _Generic works is defined in the C
standard, we can't handle it just differently from what the standard says, and
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91937
--- Comment #2 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
I'm using _Generic to create polymorphic implementations of MVE intrinsics.
MVE have more than 50 data types (combinations) and intrinsics with more upto 5
arguments. So on nesting a call to just two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Man, Steve, your memory is better than mine, and I even commented on this other
bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 91939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This bug exists since the beginning of C++11 constexpr support (gcc 4.7).
Here is a reproducer for C++11:
struct Base
{
int a;
template
static constexpr int for_all_data_members(F&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
--- Comment #2 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
if you really want this optimization then libgomp has to do checks
to guarantee that the target libc supports this usage and only
enable it when it's 100% safe. (e.g. musl or bionic does not support
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The discussion on c.l.f. is not clear whether the code is valid:
The Fortran 2018 standard says in 7.5.4.6.8:
A type has default initialization if component-initialization is specified for
any direct componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80496
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The incompatible attribute is diagnosed by -Wdiscarded-qualifiers along with
type incompatibilities due to qualifier mismatches. Because qualifier
mismatches are an error in C++ the warning is only available
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
Bug ID: 91940
Summary: __builtin_bswap16 loop optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
Bug ID: 91939
Summary: ICE as segmentation violation for invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, both D.10649.f1 and *_31 types are the pointer-to-member structs created
by C++ FE, while they aren't the same type, get_alias_set returns 0 for both of
them, both have a pointer __pfn field followed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is completely intentional, the performance without it is unacceptable, has
been done that way years before the problematic "optimization" on the libc side
has been introduced and glibc intentionally rese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
Bug ID: 91938
Summary: libgomp (and libitm) DSOs are incorrectly built with
initial-exec tls-model
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85978
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85978
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Sep 30 15:27:14 2019
New Revision: 276306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix compile time warning about building the FRV backend by adding missing b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59205
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 59205, which changed state.
Bug 59205 Summary: config/iq2000/iq2000.c:2188: possible cut'n'paste error ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59205
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59205
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Sep 30 15:18:14 2019
New Revision: 276304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove the iq2000_select_section function the iq2000 backend - it never
pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91937
Bug ID: 91937
Summary: _Generic Feature Expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
--- Comment #4 from Jörg Richter ---
The patch in comment #2 fixes the problem for us.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5)
> It is only a checking assert, so it goes away
> automatically when the branch is released.
Only when the branch is not built in checking mode.
> Therefore I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91936
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The exp function is provided by your C library, not by GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91936
Bug ID: 91936
Summary: Slowness in exp()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #7 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Hello.
>your posted disassembly doesn't seem to match
>the actual source that you have posted
Sorry, my mistake.
Seems that I attached some temporary ASM sources.
Must be check for -12, of course.
>The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91919
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I can confirm it's fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91933
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, that's what r253266 was actually dealing with...
Another related: http://wg21.link/cwg2083
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91935
Bug ID: 91935
Summary: Unneeded .debug_info entries in .symtab when using LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83452
--- Comment #17 from Dimitar Yordanov ---
I still see the issue with the latest master branch from today[1].
1-
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=patch;h=ed76597323f2005730596f3a85583691621aa616
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91933
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
http://wg21.link/cwg696 looks relevant here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 77936, which changed state.
Bug 77936 Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/checkers.h:66: pointless local
variable ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Sep 30 11:52:01 2019
New Revision: 276297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/77936 remove unused variable
PR libstdc++/77936
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 46981
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46981&action=edit
testcase that needs only one special compiler flag
$ riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -Og -g2 --param=max-combine-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
--- Comment #4 from Dmitrii Tochanskii ---
I'm not a good specialist in avx, so I just see something like loop unroll or
may be very log data preparation. For example:
=
vmovups ymm3, YMMWORD PTR [r8+r9]
vmovups ymm5, YMM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
--- Comment #3 from Dmitrii Tochanskii ---
Yep, -fno-loop-unroll-and-jam helps me! Interesting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934
Bug ID: 91934
Summary: Performance regression on 8.3.0 with -O3 and avx
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #18 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Created attachment 46979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46979&action=edit
attachment-6250-1.eml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #17 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91233
Bug 91233 depends on bug 91900, which changed state.
Bug 91900 Summary: [10 regression] mipsisa64r6-*-* rejects lo clobber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91474
--- Comment #9 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Thanks for the confirmation. I've sent a request for backporting r273174 change
onto gcc 9 branch. I believe this issue will be updated automatically when the
backport lands.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Sep 30 08:18:59 2019
New Revision: 276296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 91853] Prevent IPA-SRA ICEs on type-mismatched calls
2019-09-30 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
Dragan Mladjenovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dragan.mladjeno...@rt-rk.co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
Fenglin Hou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdutor at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91931
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 30 07:26:58 2019
New Revision: 276294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276294&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/91931
* config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
90 matches
Mail list logo
