[Bug rtl-optimization/121218] [15/16 regression] highway miscompiled at -O2 -march=znver2 since r15-3036-gb8ea13ebf12117

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218 > > --- Comment #12 from Richard Sandiford --- > On the REG_DEAD thing: REG_DEAD n

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 Jul 2025, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 > > --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug target/120941] [16 Regression] 24-40% slowdown of 519.lbm_r on Zen2 and 470.lbm on Zen5 since r16-1644-gaba3b9d3a48a07

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941 --- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Jul 2025, pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941 > > --- Comment #25 from Filip Kastl --- > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24) >

[Bug tree-optimization/121059] [15 regression] ICE when building imagemagick-7.1.1-47 (vect_get_loop_mask, at tree-vect-loop.cc:10960) since r15-5383-g8f68d9cb7897df

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Jul 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059 > > --- Comment #10 from Richard Sandiford --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/121059] [15/16 regression] ICE when building imagemagick-7.1.1-47 (vect_get_loop_mask, at tree-vect-loop.cc:10960)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Jul 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121059 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed |Add

[Bug tree-optimization/121049] [16 regression] timezone-data miscompiled with -O3 -march=x86-64-v4 -mtune=znver4 since r16-2088-ge9079e4f43d135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121049 > > --- Comment #9 from Sam James --- > Yes, I tried to go further but the compiler

[Bug ipa/120987] [13/14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r12-5541-g2cadaa1f134bec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 12 Jul 2025, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 > > --- Comment #22 from Tom de Vries --- > FYI, I've submitted a workaround for gdb

[Bug tree-optimization/121014] vectorizer uses RDIV_EXPR for integer types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121014 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Jul 2025, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121014 > > Robin Dapp changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug tree-optimization/120980] Vectorizer (early exit) introduces out-of-bounds memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 > > --- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina --- > Could we perhaps emit additional ann

[Bug tree-optimization/120980] Vectorizer (early exit) introduces out-of-bounds memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 > > --- Comment #8 from Krister Walfridsson --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de fro

[Bug tree-optimization/120358] [15 regression] qtbase-6.9.0 miscompiled since r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358 --- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, hol...@applied-asynchrony.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358 > > --- Comment #37 from Holger Hoffstätte --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/120980] Vectorizer (early exit) introduces out-of-bounds memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120980 > > --- Comment #6 from Krister Walfridsson --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from c

[Bug tree-optimization/120972] restrict does not work for not-parameter pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120972 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Jul 2025, fxue at os dot amperecomputing.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120972 > > --- Comment #4 from Feng Xue --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comme

[Bug tree-optimization/120817] [13/14/15/16 regression] Wrong code when compiled with -O1 -ftree-loop-vectorize for AArch64 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120817 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 7 Jul 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120817 > > --- Comment #17 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from com

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 04.07.2025 um 18:18 schrieb jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 > > --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- > SRA is "Scalar Replacement

[Bug testsuite/120846] vect_dotprod_hisi is used inconsistently with documentation and name in Test of autovectorization of different dot-prod modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120846 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 1 Jul 2025, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120846 > > --- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- > I think the test should be split

[Bug tree-optimization/120358] [15/16 regression] qtbase-6.9.0 miscompiled since r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 29.06.2025 um 02:08 schrieb sjames at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358 > > --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- > FWIW, it fails with -fno-stric

[Bug tree-optimization/120639] vect: Strided memory access type, stores with gaps?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120639 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 20.06.2025 um 16:17 schrieb rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120639 > > --- Comment #5 from Robin Dapp --- >> Well, consider the desired inde

[Bug tree-optimization/120639] vect: Strided memory access type, stores with gaps?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120639 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 20 Jun 2025, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120639 > > --- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp --- > > We could use scatter stores, building the i

[Bug tree-optimization/120383] Improving early break unrolled sequences with Adv. SIMD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120383 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 24 May 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120383 > > --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comm

[Bug cobol/119455] gcobol: needs optimization for direct assignments (don't call into runtime)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 23.05.2025 um 16:54 schrieb jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119455 > > James K. Lowden changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/120164] GCC fails vectorization when using conditional __builtin_prefetch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120164 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 May 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120164 > > --- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comme

[Bug preprocessor/120061] [14 Regression] libqt6webengine fails static_assert (__LINE__ == 470, ...)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120061 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 5 May 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120061 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 61328 > --> https://

[Bug rtl-optimization/119982] [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr109362.c scan-assembler \tmovq\t8\\(%rdi\\), %r by r16-190-g6901d56fea2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 29 Apr 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed |Add

[Bug debug/78685] -Og generates too many ""s

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 28 Apr 2025, Hi-Angel at yandex dot ru wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685 > > Konstantin Kharlamov changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/119577] RISC-V: Redundant vector IV roundtrip.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119577 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 28 Apr 2025, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119577 > > --- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp --- > I manage to have a quick look at the code now

[Bug tree-optimization/119872] [15/16 regression] wrong code at -O{1,2,s} since r15-1809-g735edbf1e2479f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119872 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 21 Apr 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119872 > > --- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comm

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 21 Apr 2025, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > --- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou --- > > So WITH_SIZE_EXPR isn't applicable

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 21 Apr 2025, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > --- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Eric, can you try to read through

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 Apr 2025, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > > FWIW, when I restore my patch on G

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Apr 2025, uecker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > --- Comment #11 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > > > > (In reply to rguent

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Apr 2025, uecker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > --- Comment #9 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > > If the problem is that use

[Bug tree-optimization/114052] [12 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 for well-defined infinite loop since r8-5245

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, vvinayag at arm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 > > --- Comment #24 from vvinayag at arm dot com --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f

[Bug c/113688] [14 regression] verify_type fails for compatible structs with FAM in C23, builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c and gnu23-tag-1.c with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 --- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 > > --- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Note that this is not directly rel

[Bug lto/119792] [14 Regression] internal error with simple discriminated types in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119792 > > Eric Botcazou changed: > >What|Removed |A

[Bug middle-end/104800] reodering of potentially trapping operations and volatile stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, uecker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800 > > --- Comment #19 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > > We could add an optional

[Bug tree-optimization/114052] [12 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 for well-defined infinite loop since r8-5245

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Apr 2025, vvinayag at arm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 > > --- Comment #22 from vvinayag at arm dot com --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f

[Bug tree-optimization/119399] Overlap check in vectorized code may invoke UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119399 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Apr 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119399 > > Richard Sandiford changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/119298] [15 Regression] 538.imagick_r is faster when compiled with GCC 14.2 and -Ofast -flto -march=native than with master on Zen5 since r15-3441-g4292297a0f938f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Apr 2025, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298 > > --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka --- > > Btw, it was your r8-4018-gf6fd8f2bd4e9a

[Bug middle-end/114563] ggc_internal_alloc is slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, ak at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563 > > ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed |A

[Bug target/119474] GCN 'libgomp.oacc-c++/pr96835-1.C' ICE 'during GIMPLE pass: ivopts'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119474 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119474 > > --- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs --- > This patch fixes the -O1 failure, for *this

[Bug tree-optimization/119532] [avr] ICE: in build_minus_one_cst with _Accum/_Fract types , at tree.cc:2698

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119532 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119532 > > --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- > It also occurs for current v13 and v14 at

[Bug other/119510] gcc_release will not add generated files for non-default languages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119510 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119510 > > --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I don't see how we could do the regenera

[Bug bootstrap/119513] Bootstrap with cobol enabled and --enable-generated-files-in-srcdir fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119513 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119513 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/119510] gcc_release will not add generated files for non-default languages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119510 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119510 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/119491] missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/119474] GCN 'libgomp.oacc-c++/pr96835-1.C' ICE 'during GIMPLE pass: ivopts'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119474 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119474 > > --- Comment #6 from Andrew Stubbs --- > The address space has to be introduced "late

[Bug cobol/119241] cobol Front end uses host floating point (128b) support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119241 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119241 > > --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I'm not sure if shifting the exponent is

[Bug middle-end/119325] [15 Regression] libgomp.c/simd-math-1.c (gcn offloading): timeout (for fmodf, remainderf) since r15-7257-g54bdeca3c62144

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119325 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Mar 2025, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119325 > > --- Comment #16 from Andrew Stubbs --- > Perhaps: > > asm ("mov %0, %1" : "=v"(__f

[Bug rtl-optimization/116398] [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c fails since r15-268

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 > > --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Looking at df-scan.cc (df_recompute_luid

[Bug rtl-optimization/116398] [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c fails since r15-268

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 > > --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So, I've made an experiment > --- gcc/co

[Bug rtl-optimization/116398] [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c fails since r15-268

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398 > > --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So (haven't tried that yet though) guardin

[Bug tree-optimization/119181] Missed vectorization due to imperfect SLP discovery for 2 grouped load with same base pointer (taken as 1 interleaved load)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181 > > --- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug middle-end/118801] Excessive compile time with -g -O2 -fpeel-loops -fno-var-tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801 > > --- Comment #8 from David Binderman --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/114052] [12/13 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 for well-defined infinite loop since r8-5245

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 6 Mar 2025, vvinayag at arm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052 > > vvinayag at arm dot com changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug c++/118924] [12/13/14/15 regression] Wrong code at -O2 and above leading to uninitialized accesses on aarch64-linux-gnu since r10-917-g3b47da42de621c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 3 Mar 2025, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924 > > --- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor --- > So something like the following - which

[Bug target/106902] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Program compiled with -O3 -mfma produces different result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902 --- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2025, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902 > > --- Comment #36 from Alexander Monakov --- > We can flip the default from =fas

[Bug middle-end/119033] [13/14/15 regression] Unsafe FRE of pointer assignment since r13-469-g9a53101caadae1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119033 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119033 > > Jan Hubicka changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/119016] [15 regression] svn miscompiled with -O2 -mavx -fno-vect-cost-model since r15-6807-g68326d5d1a593d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119016 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119016 > > --- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from c

[Bug tree-optimization/119016] [15 regression] svn miscompiled with -O2 -mavx -fno-vect-cost-model since r15-6807-g68326d5d1a593d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119016 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119016 > > --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina --- > At the start of the second iteration

[Bug tree-optimization/118950] [14 regression] RISC-V: rv64gcv runtime mismatch at -O3 since r14-4038-gb975c0dc3be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118950 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118950 > > --- Comment #11 from Robin Dapp --- > I figured this particular problem on RISC-V

[Bug jit/117047] [15 regression] Segfault in libgccjit garbage collection when compiling GNU Emacs with Native Compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047 > > --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- > I've only seen this on amd64 so far (2 mach

[Bug c++/118924] [12/13/14/15 regression] Wrong code at -O2 and above leading to uninitialized accesses on aarch64-linux-gnu since r10-917-g3b47da42de621c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924 > > --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- > The reason why it works with the C fron

[Bug tree-optimization/118910] Promote an expression equivalence to a name equivalence in DOM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118910 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118910 > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug middle-end/118889] attribute "common" ignored with -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 > > --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/110503] [13/14/15 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r13-322-g7f04b0d786e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110503 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110503 > > --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- > One thing we should note is that VRP a

[Bug tree-optimization/118817] [14 Regression] stringop-overflow and array-bound error with LTO/O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118817 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, shahzad.malik.muzaffar at cern dot ch wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118817 > > --- Comment #15 from Malik Shahzad MUZAFFAR dot ch> --- > I confirm

[Bug debug/118790] [15 Regression] ICE when building fiat (crash in loc_list_from_tree_1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 --- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 > > --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comm

[Bug debug/118790] [15 Regression] ICE when building fiat (crash in loc_list_from_tree_1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 > > --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- > --- gcc/tree-ssa-live.cc.jj 2025-02-

[Bug debug/118790] [15 Regression] ICE when building fiat (crash in loc_list_from_tree_1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790 > > --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So, seems id_string is mentioned in BLOC

[Bug tree-optimization/118817] [14 Regression] stringop-overflow and array-bound error with LTO/O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118817 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, shahzad.malik.muzaffar at cern dot ch wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118817 > > --- Comment #10 from Shahzad MUZAFFAR > --- > thanks Richard Biener

[Bug fortran/118831] C function with variables arguments called from fortran on ARM architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831 > > Thomas Koenig changed: > >What|Removed |Ad

[Bug target/115458] [15 regression] [RISC-V] ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1868 unable to find a register to spill since r15-518-g99b1daae18c095

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 7 Feb 2025, law at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458 > > --- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > So just recording some thoughts as I initi

[Bug target/116010] [15 regression] vectorization regressions on arm and aarch64 since r15-491-gc290e6a0b7a9de

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010 > > --- Comment #11 from Thiago Jung Bauermann org> --- > (In reply to Rich

[Bug rtl-optimization/118662] [14 regression] -ftree-slp-vectorize with -mavx causes incorrect math since r14-9316-g7890836de20912

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 27.01.2025 um 17:38 schrieb ubizjak at gmail dot com > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662 > > --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak --- > The testcase now generates (-

[Bug tree-optimization/118669] Misaligned store after vectorization without using misaligned type with SVE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669 > > Richard Sandiford changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/118669] Misaligned store after vectorization without using misaligned type with SVE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669 > > --- Comment #4 from Richard Sandiford --- > Just to be sure I understand: is th

[Bug c/116357] [12/13/14/15 Regression] The item's address of the array is not correct if aligned is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116357 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116357 > > --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So, shall we go for > --- gcc/c/c-decl.c

[Bug tree-optimization/118637] [12/13/14/15 Regression] gcc fails to optimize unsigned division by 2 to shift right by 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637 > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I guess the first question is why do we op

[Bug c/118628] gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc:10642: Possible read of uninitialised data ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/118623] [12/13/14/15 regression] Miscompile with -O2/3 and -O0/1 since r12-7751-g919fbffef07555

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623 > > Sam James changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug tree-optimization/118527] When a loop is unlooped due to sccvn, its profile is not updated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118527 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, dizhao at os dot amperecomputing.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118527 > > --- Comment #4 from Di Zhao --- > The problem is found in 548.exchange

[Bug ipa/118570] -O2 much faster than -O3 for Romberg's method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118570 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118570 > > --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- > I was thinking of this especially WRT situation

[Bug tree-optimization/118529] [15 regression] ICE when building openssl-3.3.2 on sparc (in operator[], at vec.h:910)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118529 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 17 Jan 2025, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118529 > > --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comm

[Bug tree-optimization/115825] [12/13/14 Regression] Loop unrolling increases code size with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 16 Jan 2025, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 > > --- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool --- > > This is a GIMPLE pass which has

[Bug tree-optimization/118483] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization due to cast being used more than once

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118483 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jan 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118483 > > --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- > I am not sure we need the :S in the end

[Bug tree-optimization/115825] [12/13/14 Regression] Loop unrolling increases code size with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jan 2025, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 > > --- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka --- > > /* If there is pure/const call in

[Bug middle-end/109849] suboptimal code for vector walking loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849 --- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jan 2025, arseny.kapoulkine at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849 > > Arseny Kapoulkine changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug ipa/118400] [14/15 Regression] memory leak of irange at evaluate_properties_for_edge (ipa-fnsummary.cc:690) since r14-2121

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118400 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 14 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118400 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So I think we want > 2025-01-14 Jakub Jel

[Bug ipa/116068] [15 Regression] ICE: in bitmap_alloc, at bitmap.cc:785 with -Os -flto -ffat-lto-objects -floop-parallelize-all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116068 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 14 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116068 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/118408] regex does not work under dual ABI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118408 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118408 > > --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/115825] [12/13/14 Regression] Loop unrolling increases code size with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 > > --- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool --- > gcc.target/powerpc/darn-3.c > > I

[Bug tree-optimization/98138] BB vect fail to SLP one case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 > > --- Comment #19 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/115825] [12/13/14 Regression] Loop unrolling increases code size with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 11 Jan 2025, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825 > > --- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool --- > Trivial stuff is no longer unrolle

[Bug tree-optimization/98138] BB vect fail to SLP one case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 10 Jan 2025, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 > > --- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin --- > ccp1: > > t0_83 = a0_79 + a1_80; > t1_84

[Bug tree-optimization/98138] BB vect fail to SLP one case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 10 Jan 2025, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 > > --- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin --- > It looks r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8 has made the

[Bug tree-optimization/115340] Loop/SLP vectorization possible inefficiency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rdapp.gcc at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340 > > --- Comment #6 from rdapp.gcc at gmail dot com --- > >> Another thought I had as w

[Bug tree-optimization/115340] Loop/SLP vectorization possible inefficiency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rdapp.gcc at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340 > > --- Comment #4 from rdapp.gcc at gmail dot com --- > > That said - if DR analysis

[Bug rtl-optimization/48696] Horrible bitfield code generation on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 20 Dec 2024, ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696 > > ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/117964] duplicate computed gotos will happily duplicate blocks with 9189 successors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117964 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117964 > > --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- > When maybe_duplicate_computed_goto i

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >