https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118945
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120553
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120404
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120479
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Deferring indefinitely as I don't see a way to generate a czero right now due
to the multiple use issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120603
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smunnangi1 at ventanamicro dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smunnangi1 at ventanamicro dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121019
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Per call today, deferring this idefinitely. If someone wants to pick it up,
then by all means, please do. It's just not that high a priority.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120920
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Dusan posted a patch here, but I'm not convinced it's correct. Also note the
patch failed its own test:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/pr3pr08mb5738ed049e790435a3b5a8aebe...@pr3pr08mb5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121073
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118241
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The 4 patches in this space (two from me, two from Vineet) were backported to
the gcc-15 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120356, which changed state.
Bug 120356 Summary: [15 Regression] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O[23] since
r15-6881-g7b815107f40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120995, which changed state.
Bug 120995 Summary: [15 regression] [RISC-V] ICE: unrecognizable insn
UNSPEC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP with rv64gc_zabha_zacas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120995
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120995
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121048
Bug ID: 121048
Summary: [16 Regression] Recent vectorizer changes cause RISC-V
testsuite regressions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 119267, which changed state.
Bug 119267 Summary: RISC-V: gcc generates vsetivli with wrong LMUL with
extended assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119267
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119267
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116363
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121019
Bug ID: 121019
Summary: Explore removal of DI patterns for rv32
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109286
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120642
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120995
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
Last r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120642
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120920
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This looks fairly painful to capture in a backend pattern; I didn't see any
particular attempt by combine that looked like a promising target pattern.
I suspect you'll need to look at a simplify-rtx simpli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120922
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116686
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242
Bug 116242 depends on bug 116686, which changed state.
Bug 116686 Summary: [15/16 Regression] RISC-V:
gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/pr114734.c failing with zvl1024b lmul2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116686
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 116686, which changed state.
Bug 116686 Summary: [15/16 Regression] RISC-V:
gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/pr114734.c failing with zvl1024b lmul2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116686
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119100
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I don't mind these changes being tagged to pr119100. My only concern is how
do we know when we're done on this bug?
We don't need to figure it out right now, but we do need to keep that question
in mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120922
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120930
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118886
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118057
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|116242 |
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242
Bug 116242 depends on bug 118595, which changed state.
Bug 118595 Summary: [15/16 regression] RISC-V: gfortran/c-interop test
execution failures on RVV zvl > 128b since r15-3228-g771256bcb9d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114665
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120651 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120651
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] RISC-V: |[15 Regression] RISC-V:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120892
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think an argument could be made that split-paths should go away. It seemed
like a reasonable idea at one time, but profitability was always marginal at
best. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it went away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 regression] RISC-V: |[15 regression] RISC-V:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120627
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120659, which changed state.
Bug 120659 Summary: ICE: in riscv_sched_variable_issue, at
config/riscv/riscv.cc:9879 with -O2 -mcpu=sifive-x280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120659
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120659
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119944
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ewlu at rivosinc dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120714, which changed state.
Bug 120714 Summary: RISC-V: incorrect frame pointer CFA address for stack-clash
protection loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120858
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120855
Bug ID: 120855
Summary: [16 Regression] Recent changes causing ICE in
assemble_name_resolve
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 regression] |[15 Regression]
|lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120811
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120459
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug 120763 depends on bug 120828, which changed state.
Bug 120828 Summary: [16 Regression] Unrecognized insn after recent RISC-V
change for .vf support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120827
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120827
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[RISC-V] ICE unrecognizible |[15 Regression][RISC-V] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120827
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Odds are it's some split-code that isn't as safe as it should be. I can
probably identify it if you can pass along the .split2 dump.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120828
Bug ID: 120828
Summary: [16 Regression] Unrecognized insn after recent RISC-V
change for .vf support
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120813 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120813
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Phew. After another debugging session I think this is ultimately an ext-dce
bug. The promoted state on the key object is correct; the referenced patch
just prevents the promoted state from being unnecessa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119007
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think that's reasonable as well and one of the options discussed weeks ago in
the patchwork call.
I was thinking that having the relevant intrinsics set the flag was slightly
better solution because it a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120811
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And combine. Though I suspect this is fallout from the way we're handling
2*simm12 cases with a define_insn_and_split. I've got a plan there and I'm
just waiting for Shreya to wrap up her current task be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89173
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Still happens on the BPI. But I think we have bigger issues to resolve, so
deferring further action for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |merzlyakovao at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86005
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is probably still an issue given we're not supposed to use lock-free
and locked sequences simultaneously on any given object. However, given this
only affects us when we don't have the "A", c#2 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104102
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks. Consider it pre-approved if it regtests. Or if you'd prefer I can do
the submission steps...
Thanks again for bisecting & testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It'd be a surprised if it's the ext-dce change, unless it's that second
parameter to the remove_reg_equal_equiv_notes call.
Looking at it again, I may have inverted the desired value. If bisection lands
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120651
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119944
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rzinsly at ventanamicro dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104102
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119944
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|120763 |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No strong opinion. I'll ponder pros/cons through the day and make a decision.
You'll be able to either start your day tomorrow with it fixed or with the
tuning knob patch installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89173
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119007
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think when we discussed his several weeks ago the conclusion was this was a
problem in the intrinsics space.
Essentially the intrinsics can modify FRM and when they do they probably need
to set -fno-roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-22
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120763
Bug ID: 120763
Summary: [meta-bug] Tracker for bugs to visit during weekly
RISC-V meeting
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119830
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is an ext-dce bug, it just isn't obvious.
ext-dce removes the extension in this insn:
(insn 26 24 29 3 (set (reg:DI 141 [ pretmp_16 ])
(zero_extend:DI (subreg:QI (reg:DI 160) 0))) "j.c":8:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120736
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118734
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120627
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 120736 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115759
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116504
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So for the record. Both testcases failed for me with QEMU. THe first case
worked on real hardware while the second testcase failed on real hardware.
I'm digging data out of an old email, so no clear indi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116773
Bug 116773 depends on bug 113238, which changed state.
Bug 113238 Summary: [14] RISC-V: gcc.dg vect-tsvc flakey test timeouts when
under heavy workload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113238
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113238
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113035
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112531
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 1555 matches
Mail list logo