https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97981
Bug ID: 97981
Summary: [11 regression] 32-bit x86
'gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-1.c' execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/suocy/bin/gcc-dev/
--disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 2020112
c-dev/
--disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20201124 (experimental) (GCC)
***
Command Lines:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -fno-strict-aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #7)
> Updated patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557728.html
...and it got committed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97976
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #17 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> Oh, it's a different testcase, in comment 6. Yeah a new PR would
> have been better ;-/
Do you want me to reopen PR97963 and copy comment 14 there until
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97978
Bug ID: 97978
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at
lra-assigns.c:1648
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86698
Eugene Rozenfeld changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erozen at microsoft dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97977
Bug ID: 97977
Summary: Fortran deferred length strings incompatible with OMP
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97936
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Also:
>
> FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_integral/wait_notify.cc
This looks like a bug in the test:
std::atomic a(val1);
std::thread t([&]
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94982
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, it's a different testcase, in comment 6. Yeah a new PR would
have been better ;-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why does that compiler default to -mcpu=power10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|acsawdey at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #1)
> This is also affects gcc-10
Ah, but r11-5215 isn't on the gcc-10 branch, so I think this one must be a
separate issues from PR 97936.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66512
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #4 from F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97936
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3313a2214a6253672ab4fa37a2dcf57fd0f8dce
commit r11-5326-ga3313a2214a6253672ab4fa37a2dcf57fd0f8dce
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3313a2214a6253672ab4fa37a2dcf57fd0f8dce
commit r11-5326-ga3313a2214a6253672ab4fa37a2dcf57fd0f8dce
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #4)
> I see this natively on powerpcle for both power 8 and 9. It started I think
> with or near r11-5215.
>
> There are some other ones that fail intermittently, too.
> F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97931
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
-Winit-self isn't enabled by -Wall in C (to accommodate the 'int i = i;' hack)
so unless that changes I'd rather see it in -Wuninitialized (which is in -Wall
in all C languages).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
My testing is with cross-compilers, binutils-2.34, glibc-2.29, host is RHEL7
x86_64.
Note that Toon reported a failure on x86_64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-November/630321.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can't reproduce this on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu (Fedora 32) or
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Centos 7.8.2003). I've never seen it fail :-(
Please provide the glibc and distro details for the systems w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:211d68dda14d6b773ad648909ef9dd0d65ec2053
commit r11-5325-g211d68dda14d6b773ad648909ef9dd0d65ec2053
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97976
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97976
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think there is a bug here.
This loop here:
for (const int* pi = data; pi; ++pi)
invokes undefined behavior as pi can never become null after doing the
increment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97976
Bug ID: 97976
Summary: Optimization regression in 10.1 for lambda passed as
template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97965
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't think there should be any difference between quiet and signaling
NaNs here, since < <= > >= comparisons with either kind of NaN raise
"invalid"; it's == != (and the __builtin_is* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Submitted LLVM patch at https://reviews.llvm.org/D92052
If it gets accepted for LLVM + backported to 11, we are done.
Otherwise, we have to proceed as suggested in the email thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92a30040c8d3ea4899979ec41a7e8e6a625c438d
commit r11-5323-g92a30040c8d3ea4899979ec41a7e8e6a625c438d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Sorry, I lost track of this, because i still hit the strange linker error with
building libjit
The following ghsould fix it.
diff --git a/gcc/symtab-thunks.h b/gcc/symtab-thunks.h
index 41a684995b3..0dba221779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97970
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Weigand ---
The patch did not handle flag_excess_precision correctly. I've reverted for
now and will look into a proper fix. Sorry for the breakage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97975
Bug ID: 97975
Summary: ICE unexpected expression '(int)A<
>::b' of kind
implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97970
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ulrich Weigand :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce2d9549f2b2bcb70a1a6f8f4e776e1ed427546b
commit r11-5322-gce2d9549f2b2bcb70a1a6f8f4e776e1ed427546b
Author: Ulrich Weigand
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
Bug ID: 97974
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE tree check: expected
overload, have function_decl in
get_class_binding_direct, at cp/name-lookup.c:1332
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97973
Bug ID: 97973
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy_and_build, at
cp/pt.c:19577
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
Fabian Groffen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||grobian at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |[11 Regression]
|test-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97972
Bug ID: 97972
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in
moving_insn_creates_bookkeeping_block_p, at
sel-sched.c:2031
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97971
Bug ID: 97971
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in process_alt_operands, at
lra-constraints.c:3110
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49622&action=edit
git bisect log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #11 from Chris Clayton ---
I've finished the bisect and landed at:
[chris:~/scratch/gcc-ICE/gcc]$ git bisect good
bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3 is the first bad commit
commit bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3
Author
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97918
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:196716c10bcd4074c404cc8f13bf8d9b31c76238
commit r9-9067-g196716c10bcd4074c404cc8f13bf8d9b31c76238
Author: Jason Merrill
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19323ea3e9344eb773f8fe872eadbe4f1ac6461f
commit r9-9066-g19323ea3e9344eb773f8fe872eadbe4f1ac6461f
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97918
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca8325441a6bb06292db9f165607d4e395f46c4b
commit r8-10638-gca8325441a6bb06292db9f165607d4e395f46c4b
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2bdff4f24d9065791e6d8820004772b9fe0c4c1
commit r8-10637-ga2bdff4f24d9065791e6d8820004772b9fe0c4c1
Author: Jason Merrill
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97918
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8157b74114f2ba8a6495244f3e171a818a86436a
commit r10-9071-g8157b74114f2ba8a6495244f3e171a818a86436a
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c45da4414884a5424484f5db1ab951d9de6
commit r10-9070-g3c45da4414884a5424484f5db1ab951d9de6
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e89ebd3e896f27d4afc400044d5a2b69cb524bcb
commit r10-9069-ge89ebd3e896f27d4afc400044d5a2b69cb524bcb
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e89ebd3e896f27d4afc400044d5a2b69cb524bcb
commit r10-9069-ge89ebd3e896f27d4afc400044d5a2b69cb524bcb
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97534
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97534
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd2c4e4e97331b1b3d9081191d14f8967d73e31c
commit r10-9068-gdd2c4e4e97331b1b3d9081191d14f8967d73e31c
Author: Richard Earns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97933
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc8f0f1f88d95a284aa329fbc7e70e0b529eaa2a
commit r11-5320-gbc8f0f1f88d95a284aa329fbc7e70e0b529eaa2a
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97534
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f30a9a8d9e06ae2bf38e0d25e3ca6095212c78e9
commit r11-5319-gf30a9a8d9e06ae2bf38e0d25e3ca6095212c78e9
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97970
Bug ID: 97970
Summary: [11 regression] 'gcc.dg/gomp/pr82374.c
scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 2' for
32-bit x86
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #2 from Paul Sokolovsky ---
To confirm, GCC 9.3.1 from "gcc-arm-none-eabi-9-2020-q2-update" (as distributed
by Arm from
https://developer.arm.com/tools-and-software/open-source-software/developer-tools/gnu-toolchain/gnu-rm)
also has t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #1 from Paul Sokolovsky ---
Created attachment 49620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49620&action=edit
Preprocessed original source which caused the issue (js-parser.c from
JerryScript project)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
Bug ID: 97969
Summary: [ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to
compilation infinite loop with growing memory use
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97968
Bug ID: 97968
Summary: Unnecessary mov instruction with comparison and cmov
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Creating dr for b[_7]
base_address: &b
offset from base address: (ssizetype) ((sizetype) (signed char) _5 * 4)
constant offset from base address: -1012
step: 4
base al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67791
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bbd5d0c5fb2b7527938ad44a6d8a2f2ef8bbe12
commit r11-5315-g4bbd5d0c5fb2b7527938ad44a6d8a2f2ef8bbe12
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
There's only two relevant changes, both before the snapshot tested:
ec383f0bdb4077b744d493d02afff5f13f33029e and
d87ee7f1c9cd2ffa6302cdfd0686d72e5bb7463b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97967
Bug ID: 97967
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96734
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so the question is: does it reproduce with the current master or now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97927
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97966
--- Comment #1 from jonathan.k at qspark dot co ---
Created attachment 49617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49617&action=edit
ii file which can be used to reproduce the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97966
Bug ID: 97966
Summary: maybe_instantiate_noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #8 from Chris Clayton ---
Sorry, my last comment contains an error. git bisect start... reported 7
bisections would be needed not that there were only 7 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95853, which changed state.
Bug 95853 Summary: Failure to optimize add overflow pattern to
__builtin_add_overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95853
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> I think we should reject trying to clear the padding of a
> flexible/zero-length array, with error rather than sorry. And handle an
> array at the end of a str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97965
Bug ID: 97965
Summary: constexpr evaluation vs. NaNs inconsistency
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> The larger expressions should be subject to a propagation pass and not
> arbitrarily complex static pattern matching. Maybe backprop is a su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 97964, which changed state.
Bug 97964 Summary: Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unoptimal code generation |Unoptimal code generation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1dd66b108cba086f58448ccbe9bf57b0a342f9a
commit r11-5279-ga1dd66b108cba086f58448ccbe9bf57b0a342f9a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e
commit r11-5277-ga40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with
> r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e
> So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with
r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e
So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a parameter instead of
volatile etc.) and close, rang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
>
> --- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> (In reply to SRINATH PARVATHANENI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
Yes, Richard's correct. I'm building from snapshot releases. That's why I used
the term "snapshot releases" in comment 4.
I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and am bisecting between
b642fca1c31b2e2175e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Blocks|
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
