https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119841
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> ...
> it helpfully "optimizes" these two insns (compact format):
Oops, those incoming dumps were at combine entry, so at this point gibberish.
(I have
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-17
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf
>From r15-9239-g4d7a634f6d4102 "combine: Allow 2->2 combinations,
but w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> The -ftree-dump-original output shows an extra
> return statement for the listed target, which looks correlated. (I have not
> traced its target-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > I just can't find the incompleteness
>
> the use of Xyzzy is before it is fully declared. There is only a forward
> declaration of the struct type when i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> No other options than -O0 / -O1 are required to reproduce.
Oops, make that "no other options than '-O1 std=c++20'".
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
Created attachment 60787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60787&action=edit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Tested gcc-14.2 and trunk at r15-7991-g503f10e34dcd
No other options than -O0 / -O1 are required to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118991
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
FWIW, I'm waiting on an improvement on the committed hook (perhaps another
hook), as it seems widely agreed not to be a solution, before I revisit this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> Is this resolved now?
(Referring to this PR, not the reorg.c bug, I presume)
I *think* so. Rainer?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I wonder if reapplying the fix for PR 116028 will improve the situtation
> here.
No.
Baseline:
r15-7318-gdd6247cb8fc1 coremark cycles:
4897981
(Re-)ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101521
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118409
--- Comment #23 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #18)
> m32r, h8300 and iq2000 are all failing execute/20040709-?.c
...aaand MMIX joins the crowd with results at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> Feel free to make the obvious change next time ;-)
Thanks... without building it, I couldn't be sure that was actually the right
number. And, I thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> It's all testsuite issues - the testcases don't expect the very uncommon
> TARGET_CALLEE_COPIES. There might be missed optimizations for that mode
> as we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-07
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> BTW, why component ipa?
Takling to myself again: the two linked PR:s have component ipa.
That may be correct for those PR:s, but rather than designati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
BTW, why component ipa? Before I change it back to middle-end, I'd like to
know a reason for that. IIUC, it's most likely similar (not *inter*- but)
*intra*-procedure bugs not handling a certain type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I should mention those that are regressions, i.e. that I know have ever passed
on master at one time or another (regardless of whether that timeframe or
whether the cause for the regression is *adding*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I should say the ones which are currently xfailed for hppa 32bit.
I know there's some overlap, but they're not all the same.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: mmix
A number of testsuite failures seem related to the setting of
TARGET_CALLEE_COPIES for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117618
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Bug 114175 depends on bug 117618, which changed state.
Bug 117618 Summary: mmix: may need adaptation for C23 varargs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117618
What|Removed |Added
-
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Thanks for registering this issue. There's certainly something to fix, as
evident in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Guess m68k is still affected, so leaving open.
Yes as intended, but I also wrote that I'll close this PR a week afterwards. I
guess better wait until nex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> >
> > Is it perhaps that the test is brittle; mostly target-specific despite being
> > at the tree-level and that instead the scan-test should be a specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> I explained in the thread.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671289.html
>
> -
> BTW arm ci reported 2 regressed testcase
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf, m68k-unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I forgot to mark r15-6081-g0703e7491e06c0 with this PR: it's an xfailed test
that compiles gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c with --param
logical-op-non-short-circuit=0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hp at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, patch
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117630
--- Comment #18 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to R. Diez from comment #17)
> > > I haven't found any way to make the linker say why it is pulling certain
> > > symbols or object files.
> >
> > That sounds like the GNU linker "-y" option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117630
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20242
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
>
> > Why are you all talking about C++? Yes, the docs mention C++ but this is a
> > request for C.
>
> Because Wunterminated-string-initialization was a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116988
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116920
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: cris-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
> but if the test fails before the "close"-line is reached
> (consider the multiple "stop"-lines), it wouldn't help.
I think I'll do both: the added cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Can you test if adding a line
>
> close(10, status="delete")
>
> before the
>
> end program memain
>
> fixes the issue? If so, such a fix is pre-approved;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Hans
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: SARIF
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In PR116724, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116724
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> Perhaps we should try to capture both the untranslated text and the
> translated text? SARIF has various abilities for handling translations.
Works for m
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf
I investigated my autotester signalling a failure appearing between (good)
r15-3525
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #260 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Random advice that some of you know, but it's also easy to forget: reorg (the
delayed-branch-slot-filling pass) is a usual suspect: there be dragons. So,
when suspecting wrong-code for DELAY_SLOTS suc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112985
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> But LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT=0 is
> really not a good thing (see PR116166 where it slows down bootstrapping GCC).
It may be true for both loongarch and ris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116525
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think it is more related the changelog for testsuite rather than anything
> else.
Can you please elaborate?
There are scripts in contrib/gcc-changelog/ y
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Looks like the git commit hook allows empty ChangeLog entry descriptions.
Consider r15-3096-gda043f9c7172, which has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
The underlying issue was fixed by the commit fixing PR116236, i.e.
commit r15-2937-g3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96, so I'll close this
but refresh the attribute-copying patch (adjusting the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #27 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #23)
> The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3673b7054ec268c445620b9c52d25e65bc9a7f96
>
> commit r15-2937-g3673b70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For newlib targets, several tests now fail since d63b6d8b4944..e7d88ff8aaa2 due
to undefined references to iconv, iconv_open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf
With r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593 there was a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
>From r15-2024-ga01b40c047334c (disabling late-combine for CRIS), you'll need
-flate-combine-instructions to expose the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since the introduction of the late-combine optimization in
r15-1579-g792f97b44ffc5e, test-results for CRIS have shown regressions for the
following tests, all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #27)
> The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra
> :
Thanks!
||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #25)
> The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
Are you considering back-porting this to other branches (like gcc-13) or is
there another reason this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> I've completed the sparc64-linux comparison now: no regressions with a
> non-bootstrap build and your patches either, thus the same situat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> > --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> >> The failure is even earlier here: in a sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu
> >> bootstrap, buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
> > --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> >> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> [...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
BTW, I see the target list says sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 which seems a cutnpasto
from some ancient template: that particular version is installed on cfarm211
and a build log for a recent gcc checkout says
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Hans-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and
> runs Solaris 11.4, which is the only OS release supported on trunk.
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-29
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Sorry. I bet something in reorg actually uses a barrier insn as a reference.
I'll revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-25
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|testsuite-fail |
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter N
: missed-optimization, testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: law at gcc dot gnu.org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> For gcc.c-torture/execute/arith-rand-ll.c, does it help to replace the exit
> (0) call with a return 0 statement?
No. FWIW, it also doesn't help renaming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> Not-so-wild guess: r15-518, for similar-but-unrelated reasons to PR115144.
Ah, dyscalculia strikes again. :) Please ignore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58241&action=edit
tree-dump file@518 w. ivopts
As above @518 without -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58240&action=edit
tree-dump file@517 w. ivopts
As above @517, but no -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58239&action=edit
tree-dump file @518
arith-rand.c @r15-518
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58238&action=edit
tree-dump file@517
arith-rand.c @r15-517
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I also ran a round compiled with -fno-ivopts -fno-delayed-branch: the latter
because it's somewhat non-linear in finding delay-slot-filling opportunities
(lack of "luck" causing improvements to negate)
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf
...and also, regresses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115110
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Hans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since commit r15-512
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114858
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Looks like it slowly chews up memory. I killed an -O2 run when cc1plus had
consumed 110 GiB, x86_64-linux at r14-10114-g09680e3ee7d7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114454
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 1144 matches
Mail list logo
