https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||112356
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112392
Bug ID: 112392
Summary: `a == nonnegative ? a : abs` -> abs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112391
Bug ID: 112391
Summary: inline-asm documentation wording for implicitly
volatile can be cause confusion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112390
Bug ID: 112390
Summary: `!(A & INT_MIN) & !!(A & INT_MAX)` is not optimized to
`A > 0`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112389
Bug ID: 112389
Summary: `(x | z) < (x >> y)` should be optimized to 0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112388
Bug ID: 112388
Summary: clear_cache vs cores with different cache line sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112387
Bug ID: 112387
Summary: RISC-V: failed to SLP INT64 gather load
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112386
Bug ID: 112386
Summary: `CMP0 && CMP1 && CMP2` is better optimized than `CMP0
& CMP1 & CMP2`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112385
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We can even do it if we know the unsigned value does not have the last bit set.
That is:
```
int f(int a, unsigned b, int c)
{
b &= 0x;
return (c >> a) ^ (b >> a);
}
```
Note clang(LLVM) does not ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112263
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
vincenzo: the patch in the linked e-mail is the complete diff. There are no
changes to generated Makefile.in files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112385
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note a more complex case like:
```
int f(int a, unsigned b, int c)
{
c &= 0x;
return (c >> a) ^ (b >> a);
}
```
Should also be optimized to:
```
int f(int a, unsigned b, int c)
{
c &= 0x;
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112385
Bug ID: 112385
Summary: `(2 >> a) ^ (5 >> a)` is not optimized to `7 >> a` is
2 and 5 differ in signedness
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85592
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang support:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153153
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112384
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh f2 just goes to memory.
Produces:
```
and x0, x0, 3
str q0, [sp]
ldr s0, [sp, x0, lsl 2]
dup v0.4s, v0.s[0]
```
Now clang(LLVM) produces:
```
mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112384
Bug ID: 112384
Summary: a non-constant vec dup should be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: in |ICE: in
|curr_insn_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112383
Bug ID: 112383
Summary: `a&=CST; (a&b) != a` and `((~b) & a) & CST != 0`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112382
Bug ID: 112382
Summary: `(a&b) != a` where a is known to have one known bit
set is not optimized to ((~b&a)>>shift) & 1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.4|14.0
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
The original regression was caused by r12-4526-gd8edfadfc7a979 .
d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844 is the first bad commit
commit d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
--- Comment #5 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Hmm, this seems awkward to me. It won't work AFAICT with the usual
native bootstrap environment, where you just run:
$ /path/to/configure && make bootstrap
and it won't work where you have an old vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #6 from Kostadin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Kostadin from comment #4)
> > This is the first commit where it doesn't ICE. I reverted it from master,
> > and it did start ICEing again.
>
> Does the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> bisect says:
>
> commit r14-4612-g6decda1a35be57
> Author: Richard Biener
> Date: Thu Oct 12 11:34:57 2023 +0200
>
> tree-optimization/111779 - Handle some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kostadin from comment #4)
> This is the first commit where it doesn't ICE. I reverted it from master,
> and it did start ICEing again.
Does the ICE start at f08ca5903c7 ? If so this was the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-04
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #4 from Kostadin ---
This is the first commit where it doesn't ICE. I reverted it from master, and
it did start ICEing again.
commit r14-5001-g8111b5c23bd14f
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Mon Oct 30 10:59:51 2023 +0800
Expand: C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111816
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-04
Keywords|error-rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112288
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112379
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112379
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9eef85a0276a0a118b76ce2da00861b75e9a3012
commit r14-5125-g9eef85a0276a0a118b76ce2da00861b75e9a3012
Author: Sergei Trofimovich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Target|x86_64-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
Trying 25, 31, 32 -> 34:
25: strict_low_part(r114:TI#0)=r102:QI
REG_DEAD r102:QI
31: {r131:SI=r130:SI&0x1f800;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_DEAD r130:SI
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
32: {r132:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> might not be a 14 regression, I need to build older gccs with more checking
ok, it is a 14 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> Interestingly, it is the same source file as
> in PR112380 (which still occurs on trunk).
sorry, I lied here, just similar names and I skimmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
```
[...]
In file included from ../mesa-23.2.1/src/util/u_debug.h:49,
from ../mesa-23.2.1/src/util/format/u_format.h:35,
from ../mesa-23.2.1/src/compiler/nir/nir.h:43,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 56507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56507&action=edit
reduced.i
Attached reduced version. Not bothered cleaning it up b/c of that issue with it
working on trunk.
Needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112381
Bug ID: 112381
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building Mesa (internal
compiler error: in lra_split_hard_reg_for)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] Dead |[12/13 Regression] Dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112379
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Proposed trivial fix by marking helper as `ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED`:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635194.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
might not be a 14 regression, I need to build older gccs with more checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
reduced:
```
enum { TGSI_FILE_NULL };
struct ureg_src {
unsigned File : 4;
unsigned : 2;
unsigned : 2;
unsigned : 2;
unsigned : 1;
unsigned IndirectFile : 4;
unsigned IndirectSwizzle : 2;
int :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60846
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6ea74b68c5904446da6050751fde97d02549d1f
commit r13-8002-ge6ea74b68c5904446da6050751fde97d02549d1f
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'll try reduce it now.
ada --enable-cet
--disable-systemtap --enable-valgrind-annotations --disable-vtable-verify
--disable-libvtv --with-zstd --with-isl --disable-isl-version-check
--enable-default-pie --enable-host-pie --enable-host-bind-now
--enable-default-ssp --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112368
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
-enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20231104 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112378
--- Comment #1 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
The -fanalyzer does not seem to handle glibc __CONST_SOCKADDR_ARG definitions
with transparent_unions that are used under -D_GNU_SOURCE (__USE_GNU).
Minimal reduced testcase:
$ cat test_sockaddr.c
struct so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112378
Bug ID: 112378
Summary: Missing -fanalizer diagnostics with glibc
under _GNU_SOURCE
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112349
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930
--- Comment #4 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> Note that now we have only 2 weeks before GCC 14 stage 1 ends.
Yeah, I'm aware. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #1)
> We're aiming to add SME and SME2 support in GCC 14, hopefully by the end of
> the year.
Note that now we have only 2 weeks before GCC 14 stage 1 ends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98541
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-04
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110133
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51f94778b45514992a716b0b2d7a87244e6f0018
commit r14-5123-g51f94778b45514992a716b0b2d7a87244e6f0018
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112269
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> I can't reproduce any of these testsuite failures on trunk with x86_64
> -m32... could you provide a preprocessed source file perhaps?
The libstdc++ testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #21 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #16)
> I agree that the C++ should have this warning as well, although it seems
> less important there. This would be an enhancement request for the C++ FE.
See 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
Bug ID: 112377
Summary: Implement -Walloc-size in c++
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
76 matches
Mail list logo
