https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120098
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120166
Bug ID: 120166
Summary: [15 Regression] constexpr array with 66 elements
yields "integer initializer is not an integer constant
expression"
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118977
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #4)
> I managed to narrow down the commit that broke this. RTEMS has some
> functions to support libatomic in libatomic/config/rtems. What tiny bit of
> magic are
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119841
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119841
Bug ID: 119841
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/cris/pr93372-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rt
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'".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
Bug ID: 119319
Summary: incorrect error: invalid use of incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
Bug ID: 118303
Summary: Various behaviours exposed by the testsuite result
dependent on TARGET_CALLEE_COPIES
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
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
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117618
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-22
Assignee|unas
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
Bug ID: 118055
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr83403-1.c and -2 for
CRIS and m68k since r15-6097-gee2f19b0937b5e
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
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
gnu.o
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|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Bug ID: 117973
Summary: [15 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r15-5646-gd1cf0d7a0f27fd for
non-LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT targets
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
Bug ID: 117954
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c FAILs for
non-LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT after
r15-5646-gd1cf0d7a0f27fd
Product: gcc
Versi
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Bug ID: 116895
Summary: [15 Regression] Many c++ regressions after
r15-3859-g63a598deb0c9fc for (non-arm) newlib targets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116744
Bug ID: 116744
Summary: RFE: can generated SARIF file be a container for
"everything" needed for a bug-report against gcc?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Bug ID: 116701
Summary: [15 Regression] gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90 suddenly
fails for non-fd_truncate targets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116525
Bug ID: 116525
Summary: Commit hook allows empty ChangeLog entry description
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
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
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116362
Bug ID: 116362
Summary: [15 Regression] libstdc++ assumes newlib is configured
to include iconv
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115932
Bug ID: 115932
Summary: [15 Regression] performance regression after
r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
Bug ID: 115883
Summary: [15 Regression] late-combine exposing LRA problems
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
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!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.1
CC|
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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Bug ID: 115182
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/cris/pr93372-47.c at
r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
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)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Bug ID: 115144
Summary: [15 Regression] 2% performance regression for some
codes with r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
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|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Bug ID: 115141
Summary: [15 Regression] g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr83215.C and
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c since
r15-512-g9b7cad5884f21c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
1 - 100 of 334 matches
Mail list logo
