[Bug tree-optimization/117000] Inefficient code for 32-byte struct comparison (ptest missing)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117000 --- Comment #6 from Paweł Bylica --- Thanks for fixing this. Is there a way to get similar effect in GCC 14?

[Bug rtl-optimization/117000] New: Inefficient code for 32-byte struct comparison (ptest missing)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117000 Bug ID: 117000 Summary: Inefficient code for 32-byte struct comparison (ptest missing) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/114452] Functions invoked through compile-time table of function pointers not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452 --- Comment #7 from Paweł Bylica --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6) > (In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #5) > > (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > > > In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the a

[Bug rtl-optimization/114452] Functions invoked through compile-time table of function pointers not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452 --- Comment #5 from Paweł Bylica --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the array > are semantically equivalent which is recognized by ICF but making it > be able to pass thi

[Bug rtl-optimization/114452] Functions invoked through compile-time table of function pointers not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452 --- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica --- I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not optimized: using F = int (*)(int) noexcept; inline int impl(int x) noexcept { return x; } void test(int z[2]) noexcept { static cons

[Bug rtl-optimization/114452] New: Functions invoked through compile-time table of function pointers not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452 Bug ID: 114452 Summary: Functions invoked through compile-time table of function pointers not inlined Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/113764] New: [X86] Generates lzcnt when bsr is sufficient

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113764 Bug ID: 113764 Summary: [X86] Generates lzcnt when bsr is sufficient Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: t

[Bug middle-end/79173] add-with-carry and subtract-with-borrow support (x86_64 and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173 --- Comment #15 from Paweł Bylica --- For what it's worth, clang's __builtin_addc is implemented in frontend only as a pair of __builtin_add_overflow. The commit from 11 year ago does not explain why they were added. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-

[Bug tree-optimization/110020] [13/14 Regression] SHA2 misscompilation at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110020 --- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica --- Yes, you are right. Sorry for taking your time.

[Bug tree-optimization/110020] New: [13/14 Regression] SHA2 misscompilation at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110020 Bug ID: 110020 Summary: [13/14 Regression] SHA2 misscompilation at -O3 Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/109845] New: Addition overflow/carry flag unnecessarily put in a temporary register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109845 Bug ID: 109845 Summary: Addition overflow/carry flag unnecessarily put in a temporary register Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug rtl-optimization/49054] useless cmp+jmp generated for switch when "default:" is unreachable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49054 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chfast at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug middle-end/109844] New: Unnecessary basic block with single jmp instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109844 Bug ID: 109844 Summary: Unnecessary basic block with single jmp instruction Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug target/105354] __builtin_shuffle for alignr generates suboptimal code unless SSSE3 is enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105354 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chfast at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 f

[Bug middle-end/104151] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] x86: excessive code generated for 128-bit byteswap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104151 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chfast at gmail dot com --- Comment #18

[Bug rtl-optimization/109771] New: Unnecessary pblendw for vectorized or

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109771 Bug ID: 109771 Summary: Unnecessary pblendw for vectorized or Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-opti

[Bug target/92140] clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140 --- Comment #32 from Paweł Bylica --- For what it's worth, the original code is compiled the same as in Clang since GCC 10. https://godbolt.org/z/vxorYW815

[Bug tree-optimization/109667] New: [12/13/14 Regression] Unnecessary temporary storage used for 32-byte struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109667 Bug ID: 109667 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Unnecessary temporary storage used for 32-byte struct Product: gcc Version: 12.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/106786] [12/13 Regression] SRA regression causes extra instructions sometimes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106786 --- Comment #4 from Paweł Bylica --- Any update on this? I've identified some other similar cases where this hurting the performance.

[Bug tree-optimization/107837] New: Missed optimization: Using memcpy to load a struct unnecessary uses stack space

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107837 Bug ID: 107837 Summary: Missed optimization: Using memcpy to load a struct unnecessary uses stack space Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug c++/96868] C++20 designated initializer erroneous warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868 --- Comment #6 from Paweł Bylica --- The workaround is MyObj obj = {}; which at least suggests some inconsistency in the compiler internals. For me this warning should be disabled in C++ when designated initializers are used and all other fie

[Bug c++/107434] New: Wrong -Wmissing-field-initializers for C++ designated initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107434 Bug ID: 107434 Summary: Wrong -Wmissing-field-initializers for C++ designated initializers Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/106786] New: Regression in cmp+sbb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106786 Bug ID: 106786 Summary: Regression in cmp+sbb Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/96475] direct threaded interpreter with computed gotos generates suboptimal dispatch loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chfast at gmail dot com --- Comment #25 f

[Bug c++/105481] New: ICE: unexpected expression of kind template_parm_index

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481 Bug ID: 105481 Summary: ICE: unexpected expression of kind template_parm_index Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug target/100119] New: [x86] Conversion unsigned int -> double produces -0 (-m32 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100119 Bug ID: 100119 Summary: [x86] Conversion unsigned int -> double produces -0 (-m32 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug target/99620] Subtract with borrow (SBB) missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99620 --- Comment #4 from Paweł Bylica --- Can you give me introduction where and how to fix it? I have a longer list of similar issues, so maybe it's good time to learn how to fix them myself. FYI, clang is unifying both cases by changing `k = l > a.

[Bug rtl-optimization/99620] New: Subtract with borrow (SBB) missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99620 Bug ID: 99620 Summary: Subtract with borrow (SBB) missed optimization Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: r

[Bug c++/97145] Sanitizer pointer-subtract breaks constexpr functions subtracting pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/51839] GCC not generating adc instruction for canonical multi-precision add sequence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51839 Paweł Bylica changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chfast at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug libstdc++/97659] Invalid pointer subtraction in vector::insert() (reported by pointer-subtract AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97659 --- Comment #4 from Paweł Bylica --- I'd like to explain some things here (to my best knowledge): 1. The "pointer-subtract" checks is ASan extension, not enabled by default. When running with this check enabled in my application I have not detec

[Bug libstdc++/97659] Invalid pointer subtraction in vector::insert() (reported by pointer-subtract AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97659 --- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica --- Created attachment 49482 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49482&action=edit Minimal test case source code It turned out the problem is related to vector's internal instrumentation _GLIBCXX

[Bug libstdc++/97659] New: Invalid pointer subtraction in vector::insert() (reported by pointer-subtract AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97659 Bug ID: 97659 Summary: Invalid pointer subtraction in vector::insert() (reported by pointer-subtract AddressSanitizer) Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/97415] New: Invalid pointer comparison in stringbuf::str() (reported by pointer-compare AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415 Bug ID: 97415 Summary: Invalid pointer comparison in stringbuf::str() (reported by pointer-compare AddressSanitizer) Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/97414] New: AddressSanitizer CHECK failed: detect_stack_use_after_return and detect_invalid_pointer_pairs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97414 Bug ID: 97414 Summary: AddressSanitizer CHECK failed: detect_stack_use_after_return and detect_invalid_pointer_pairs Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Stat