https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
Alright, so after some digging through the dumps I realised that adding
-fno-early-inlining is enough to get a non-LTO testcase. So the following
testcase reproduces the different codegen before/after the abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|aarch64: Wrong unwind info |aarch64: Wrong unwind info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Bug ID: 119610
Summary: aarch64: Wrong unwind info with
-fstack-clash-protection -fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119580
Bug ID: 119580
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in
comp_template_args, at cp/pt.cc:9595
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] aarch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Is this now fixed on trunk?
No, not really. The codegen at -O2 on trunk is:
f:
stp x29, x30, [sp, -144]!
mov x29, sp
add x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
Bug ID: 119444
Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warnings with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
Bug ID: 119393
Summary: [15 Regression] Worse vectorization of imagick_r hot
loop on aarch64 since r15-5024-g2a2e6784074e1f
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119351
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
I will take a look and try to reproduce/reduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119189
Bug ID: 119189
Summary: [15 Regression] Code quality regressions on aarch64
since ext-dce change r15-7915-g4ed07a11ee2845
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org|acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
A bisect points to r10-917-g3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1 :
commit 3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Thu Jun 6 17:31:20 2019
Make SRA re-construct orginal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Bug ID: 118924
Summary: Wrong code leading to uninitialized accesses on
aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118567
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Sorry, I'm now away until Tuesday 11th Feb so likely won't be able to look at
this before then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118111
Bug ID: 118111
Summary: profile_estimate builds inconsistent profile for
gcc.dg/pr109417.c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Bug ID: 117790
Summary: Early break vectorization corrupts profile info
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117449
Bug ID: 117449
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in gen_reg_rtx on aarch64 via
aarch64_emit_opt_vec_rotate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Should be fixed everywhere, I'll leave this open for a bit until we get
confirmation that this fixes the Debian package build with GCC 14, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] Wrong|[14 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, so the problem seems to be that we're scanning for "Unrolled loop 3 times"
appearing exactly once in the dump, but on powerpc it appears twice; that is
because the loop in main gets unrolled too (presumabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Sorry for the delay in looking into this.
So it looks like the unrolling works as expected without LTO, at least I see:
;; Unrolled loop 3 times, constant # of iterations 26 insns
in the dump with a powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Testing a fix for the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Bug ID: 116783
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 with late pair
fusion pass (wrong alias analysis)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
--- Comment #14 from Alex Coplan ---
This should be largely fixed now (and in a position to get further improvements
from vectorisation further down the line), perhaps folks that monitor x86_64
performance can confirm if they see the expected im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116674
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116569
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Here's a preprocessed testcase (not for the testsuite, just to make it easier
to reproduce using only cc1):
#pragma GCC aarch64 "arm_neon.h"
typedef double float64_t;
__extension__ extern __inline void
__at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
I think all except the first patch in the series (C++ patch) have been approved
now, so the rest are waiting on review for that:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/661559.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116522
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116522
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
The following should fix it:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanltranstree.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanltranstree.exp
index a7d4de3765f..3d85813ea2f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanltranstree.exp
+++ b/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116522
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116522
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
So it turns out the reason #pragma GCC unroll doesn't work under LTO is because
we don't propagate the `has_unroll` flag when streaming functions during LTO,
so RTL loop2_unroll ends up not running at all.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
Just to give an update on this, the following testcase shows why adding:
#pragma GCC unroll 4
in libstdc++ doesn't immediately seem to help. The testcase is:
$ cat lambda.cc
template
inline Iter
my_find(It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Yeah, I'm looking into this as Tamar mentioned above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
So the following is enough to fix the missed ldp due to alias analysis:
diff --git a/gcc/pair-fusion.cc b/gcc/pair-fusion.cc
index 31d2c21c88f..ab49d955ccf 100644
--- a/gcc/pair-fusion.cc
+++ b/gcc/pair-fusio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115120
Bug ID: 115120
Summary: Bad interaction between ivcanon and early break
vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
--- Comment #20 from Alex Coplan ---
I'd just like to ping this serious wrong code bug. It's unfortunate that this
wasn't addressed for the 14.1 release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is some analysis on why we miss some of these opportunities in ldp_fusion.
So initially in 267r.vregs we have some very clean RTL:
6: r101:DI=sfp:DI-0x40
7: x0:DI=r101:DI
8: call [`g'] argc:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] Typo in |[14 Regression] Typo in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114674
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114936
Bug ID: 114936
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Typo in
aarch64-ldp-fusion.cc:combine_reg_notes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114924
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114924
Bug ID: 114924
Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Wrong update of MEM_EXPR
by RTL loop unrolling since r11-2963-gd6a05b494b4b71
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114801
Bug ID: 114801
Summary: [14 Regression] arm: ICE in find_cached_value, at
rtx-vector-builder.cc:100 with MVE intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114674
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114674
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114674
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
I think the problem is that the arm backend incorrectly sets the const
attribute on this builtin, but it can't be const because it reads memory (it
should be pure instead):
sizes-gimplified unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Hmm, so in 043t.mergephi1 we have:
uint32x4_t foo ()
{
const uint32_t D.13439[4];
uint32x4_t V0;
:
D.13439 = *.LC0;
V0_3 = vld1q_u32 (&D.13439);
D.13439 ={v} {CLOBBER(eos)};
return V0_3;
}
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
Bug ID: 114323
Summary: [14 Regression] MVE vector load intrinsic miscompiled
since r14-5622-g4d7647edfd7d98
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114291
Bug ID: 114291
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -fprofile-use at
-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114284
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
I think this has been fixed by
r14-9379-ga0e945888d973fc1a4a9d2944aa7e96d2a4d7581
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114284
Bug ID: 114284
Summary: [14 Regression] arm: Load of volatile short gets
miscompiled (loaded twice)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114193
Bug ID: 114193
Summary: missed early break vectorization of reduction
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114192
Bug ID: 114192
Summary: scalar code left around following early break
vectorization of reduction
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111770
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> As said X + 0. -> X is an invalid transform with FP unless there are no
> signed zeros (maybe also problematic with sign-dependent rounding).
Yeah, I was thinkin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111770
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
I think to progress this and related cases we need to have .MASK_LOAD defined
to zero in the case that the predicate is false (either unconditionally for all
targets if possible or otherwise conditionally for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112922
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] darktable |darktable build on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113658
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
--- Comment #30 from Alex Coplan ---
Backport for GCC 12 submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645415.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
--- Comment #12 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is an alternative testcase that also fails in the same way on the GCC 12
and 13 branches:
void foo(int x, int y, int z, int d, int *buf)
{
for(int i = z; i < y-z; ++i)
for(int j = 0; j < d; ++j)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12 Regression] darktable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > My bisection points to r12-5915-ge93809f62363ba4b233858005aef652fb550e896
>
> Which means it is related to bug 110
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Same with the head of the GCC 12 branch, but I agree it isn't a [14 Regression]
as I can reproduce the issue with basepoints/gcc-14, so maybe something was
backported to 12/13 that is making it latent on the b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Why do you think it is a 14 Regression?
> Seems r12-5166 works fine while r12-6600 already doesn't, so that would make
> it [12/13/14 Regression], no?
Well on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787
Bug ID: 113787
Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O with ipa-modref on
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113705
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ICE in |[14 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113705
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|dar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
--- Comment #25 from Alex Coplan ---
Proposed fix for GCC 13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644459.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #24 from Alex Coplan -
1 - 100 of 638 matches
Mail list logo
