https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101305
Bug ID: 101305
Summary: Bind(C): Problems with incorrect kinds/sizes in
ISO_Fortran_binding.h and CFI_establish
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101304
Bug ID: 101304
Summary: Bind(C): CONTIGUOUS attribute not handled correctly in
Fortran routines called from C with discontiguous
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101259
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #5 from ofv at wanadoo dot es ---
Taken from config.log:
ac_cs_config=" '--prefix=/mingw32' '--with-local-prefix=/mingw32/local'
'--build=i686-w64-mingw32' '--host=i686-w64-mingw32'
'--target=i686-w64-mingw32'
'--with-native-system-h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #4 from ofv at wanadoo dot es ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> We definitely cannot investigate this without more information, in
> particular the configure line. Barring that, you might want to try with the
> curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101193
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101282
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101282
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f67d7f9416be37c34c4188866fb3d10c1dbc7a2a
commit r11-8686-gf67d7f9416be37c34c4188866fb3d10c1dbc7a2a
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101282
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c77230856eac2d28eb7bf10985846885c3c8727b
commit r12-1993-gc77230856eac2d28eb7bf10985846885c3c8727b
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6feb628a706e86eb3f303aff388c74bdb29e7381
commit r12-1992-g6feb628a706e86eb3f303aff388c74bdb29e7381
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6feb628a706e86eb3f303aff388c74bdb29e7381
commit r12-1992-g6feb628a706e86eb3f303aff388c74bdb29e7381
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #58 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #57)
> Can you please build options-save.c with -O0 and debug it:
Good idea, but I have run out of time on this issue.
Another 40 or so interesting commits have app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101256
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
And here is a self-contained testcase:
template
const T& max(const T& a, const T& b)
{
return (a < b) ? b : a;
}
signed char var_5 = -128;
unsigned int var_11 = 2144479212U;
unsigned long long int arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101297
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ca89394280da4afad6074ec3cb7136b6142af7b
commit r12-1990-g2ca89394280da4afad6074ec3cb7136b6142af7b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100615
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
commit r11-8681-g21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
commit r11-8681-g21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa92642b26ee236098ed51752feecc7cf5711f8c
commit r11-8678-gfa92642b26ee236098ed51752feecc7cf5711f8c
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100615
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d58bfb78c8dc6f5bdf7786b96f26329e0d36b80
commit r11-8671-g8d58bfb78c8dc6f5bdf7786b96f26329e0d36b80
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1187f297f7ef6a3dc86103b642d463f7a7bd6096
commit r11-8670-g1187f297f7ef6a3dc86103b642d463f7a7bd6096
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101303
--- Comment #1 from Edward Nolan ---
Some godbolt-ing shows that this test case is an ICE in GCC versions 9, 10, 11,
and 12, and rejects-valid in GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101303
Bug ID: 101303
Summary: ICE from modified lambda-generic-100362.C test case
from bug 100362
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101247
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3528ce197f8886869f95e8a8f901861a319851c
commit r12-1989-ge3528ce197f8886869f95e8a8f901861a319851c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers ---
It does raise an issue which I'm going to follow up on separately on the SG1
(concurrency and parallelism study group) mailing list.
While it is indeed the case that standard says you can't count on determ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101302
Bug ID: 101302
Summary: attribute-specifier-seq in noptr-new-declarator not
parsed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #12 from Florin Iucha ---
Actually, it gets even better - no clang needed. Just build GCC 11-20210626
Snapshot and build the example using the Google test recipe:
#
# Makefile
#
ALL: bin/test_hello
.PHONY: clean
CXX=/opt/gcc11-for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #11 from Florin Iucha ---
Updated Makefile for clang12:
#---
ALL: bin/test_hello
.PHONY: clean
CXX=/opt/clang12-for-tng/bin/clang++
CXXFLAGS=-m64 -g -std=c++20 --gcc-toolchain=/opt/gcc11-for-tng
-fsanitize=un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #10 from Florin Iucha ---
I am able to reproduce something similar by building GCC11 from snapshot
11-20210626 (96358cbbe6e6447519a155301b6acb1624c0) and then using Clang12
(12.0.1-rc4) ubsan:
#234 0x7f9769d39670 in __cxxabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
commit r12-1986-g84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101301
Bug ID: 101301
Summary: Improving sparse switch statement
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 2, 2021 4:03:34 PM GMT+02:00, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
>
>--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
>This works:
>
>diff --git a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> we are now left with (where I suspect that the remaining fails are an
> artefact of the way in which Darwin represents offsets instead of
> relocations in DWARF debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xw111luoye at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95023
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Bug ID: 101300
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
we are now left with (where I suspect that the remaining fails are an artefact
of the way in which Darwin represents offsets instead of relocations in DWARF
debug sections):
Running target unix/-m64
Running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #18 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The short answer re the TS 29113 thing is that it's what the customer who's
funding the work asked us to do. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85017431068251628478f38346c273418c71209b
commit r12-1983-g85017431068251628478f38346c273418c71209b
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb817f27e82769aef545d580a0c47a3aa50d1ec4
commit r12-1982-geb817f27e82769aef545d580a0c47a3aa50d1ec4
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101299
Bug ID: 101299
Summary: bb-slp-74.c fails on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 025033c9ecf..bd85bbfdd6f 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -7078,7 +7078,8 @@ store_constructor (tree exp, rtx target, int cleared,
poly_int64 size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
> How can one write 0 - 1 in 1-bit signed though? 1 isn't in the range...
> One can only do 0 + -1 which doesn't overflow, or 0 - -1 which does.
Ah, yeah, of course. So the issue that 1 doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> > wi::sub sets the overflow flag for 0 - 1 with 1 bit signed... so the
> > comparison ends up being unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101298
Bug ID: 101298
Summary: Inclusion of a file without trailing newline breaks
-fdirectives-only
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101297
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51102&action=edit
gcc12-pr101297.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101296
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101297
Bug ID: 101297
Summary: Spurious comma accepted at the end of #pragma omp
atomic
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101296
Bug ID: 101296
Summary: Addition of x86 addsub SLP patterned slowed down
433.milc by 12% on znver2 with -Ofast -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
--- Comment #5 from yhf8377 ---
Thank you Thomas for the detailed information and links to the references.
I guess I will need to move this bug report into our own bug tracker. :-) This
is indeed a bug in our code as we had incorrect assumption
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
Bug 99728 depends on bug 101293, which changed state.
Bug 101293 Summary: LIM ref canonicalization incomplete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101293
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101293
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4546f423ecff96f223adfbec4963d2ff17f27c7b
commit r12-1977-g4546f423ecff96f223adfbec4963d2ff17f27c7b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
--- Comment #13 from Gabrielle Hugo ---
>Yes, we're usually waiting a bit to see if fallout is detected by
>autotesters before backporting to release branches.
Oki thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 2 Jul 2021, gabrielle.hugo at cern dot ch wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
>
> --- Comment #11 from Gabrielle Hugo ---
> Awesome, thanks a lot Richard!
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101271
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc8f0ed7042280282035168428f6afc839997cf0
commit r12-1976-gbc8f0ed7042280282035168428f6afc839997cf0
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101271
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc8f0ed7042280282035168428f6afc839997cf0
commit r12-1976-gbc8f0ed7042280282035168428f6afc839997cf0
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
--- Comment #11 from Gabrielle Hugo ---
Awesome, thanks a lot Richard!
Applying your patch in tree-vect-slp.c to gcc 11, I now get the vectorized
division divpd after the if as expected:
if (norm .gt. 1.D+00) then
400826: 76 7b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
With the hack and PR101293 fixed we're still left with
Memory reference 13: *d_28(D).lam1.v
Memory reference 14: VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(*d_28(D).lam1)
because the access types are incompatible (v4df vs v32qi).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101294
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101295
Bug ID: 101295
Summary: constexpr destructor: ''result_decl' not supported by
dump_expr' is not a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
St
l-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20210702 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101293
Bug ID: 101293
Summary: LIM ref canonicalization incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51100&action=edit
hack
The attached tries to rewrite the aggregate assignments into a load/store
sequence producing
_33 = VI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
--- /tmp/x.ii ---
struct type_info {
void operator==(type_info) { ((__name) || (0)); }
char __name;
};
enum byte : char;
void operator>>(byte, int) { ((0)); }
struct __class_type_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
The vectorizer sets loop constraints, looks like we forget to clear it in the
versioning code. I'll have a look next week unless somebody beats me to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r12-1804-g65870e75616ee4359d1c13b99be794e6a577bc65, one can see it
with:
diff --git a/gcc/warning-control.cc b/gcc/warning-control.cc
index ec8ed232763..6b1e5f26c8a 100644
--- a/gcc/warning-cont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> It might make sense to provide targets a means to opt-out of CTF/BTF support
> and thus diagnose -gctf as unsupported on them.
In the short-term, I've got fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
When generates doloop.xxx in ivopts, gimple looks like:
[local count: 21023864]:
_38 = val_4(D) - start_3(D);
_29 = _38 / 16;
doloop.15_35 = _29 + 1;
[local count: 191126041]:
# cnt_17 = PHI <0(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, the support is in GCC 9 as well and the niter analysis is the same so
there's sth else going on. Btw, the assumptions are
Analyzing # of iterations of loop 1
exit condition [start_3(D) + 16, + , 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
We definitely cannot investigate this without more information, in particular
the configure line. Barring that, you might want to try with the current
gcc-11 branch where a very recent change could help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Likely started with r10-1057-g2778a719bebf7a32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The trigger is the vectorizer versioning on niter->assumptions and that being
wrong. That feature is new in GCC 10 thus GCC 9 appears to be fine (but likely
niter->assumptions is still wrong).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #12 from Martin Reinecke ---
Any hope of addressing this for gcc 12?
I have a real-world test case where this effect causes roughly 15-20% slowdown,
and I expect that with the wider availability of std::simd types more people
will enc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-02
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
> Hi Jeff, what's the option and stanza?
The reason why I asked is that I can't simply reproduce it locally at O2, with
C compiler it likely runs forever. I guess what y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101286
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7cad1a0ffe9f003ec347521dfd33f320f4c2b04
commit r12-1974-gf7cad1a0ffe9f003ec347521dfd33f320f4c2b04
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
Bug ID: 101292
Summary: recent valgrind error in warning-control.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
