https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
I'm testing a fix for the above which simply removes the
540else if (!flag_auto_profile && debug_info_level == DINFO_LEVEL_NONE)
clause: i.e. to always retain blocks that satisfy
inlined_function_ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm afraid especially with LTO that will not be a good idea, the warnings are
nice, but memory consumption is more important if it causes swapping or is
otherwise excessive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
Bug ID: 83338
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 510.parest_r ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #11 from Andrey Guskov ---
Whoops. Sorry, 436 belongs to pr83338, even though its ICE message is the same
as 507`s.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Guskov ---
32-bit SPEC CPU2006::436 also affected.
during GIMPLE pass: vect
regex.c: In function 'regexec.constprop':
regex.c:5755:1: internal compiler error: in vectorizable_mask_load_store, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:2349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83339
Bug ID: 83339
Summary: missing warning on a invalid attribute specified for a
builtin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
void f(char**p,char**q,long*r){
for(int i=0;i<1024;i++)
r[i]=p[i]-q[i];
}
with g++ -O3 on x86_64 also ICEs, let's start with that (I don't have access to
SPEC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Guskov ---
32-bit SPEC CPU2006::447 also affected.
during GIMPLE pass: vect
fe.cc:681:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0xcb7db1 verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
/user/aguskov/scratch/agusko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83340
Bug ID: 83340
Summary: Libgfortran.a (downloaded) is not PIC compiled...
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79509
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I believe the bug is that get_vectype_for_scalar_type for the operands of
> POINTER_DIFF_EXPR is vector of unsigned elements, the result of
> POINTER_DIFF_EXPR is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83317
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 8 23:47:44 2017
New Revision: 255517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-08 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/83317
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83340
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cgw at alum dot mit.edu
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83341
Bug ID: 83341
Summary: r254899 causes about 15000 test failures on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This works for me, but I'll leave testcase and testing for tomorrow.
--- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c.jj2017-12-08 12:21:58.0 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c 2017-12-09 00:55:17.614147824 +0100
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83317
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32623
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83338
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> This works for me, but I'll leave testcase and testing for tomorrow.
You are fast :-)
> @@ -5546,6 +5554,15 @@ vectorizable_operation (gimple *stmt, gi
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83342
Bug ID: 83342
Summary: extern marked variable template with later definition
emits error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83343
Bug ID: 83343
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on writing via stpncpy
return value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48140
Albert Chan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||albertmcchan at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61428
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Aldy, here's another one to try with the new backwards threader.
I haven't done any in depth analysis here, but with the new threader we get one
threaded path
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #7 from Alex Weslowski ---
Created attachment 42819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42819&action=edit
Preprocessed file trans3.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #8 from Alex Weslowski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Illegal instruction is usually coming from gmp/mpfr which might be linked
> statically into your GCC binary on mingw.
This may indeed be the case. Also happens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith ---
This bug still exists in GCC trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83322
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83337
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 8 08:06:31 2017
New Revision: 255497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81303
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
>
> I think we can avoid the warning by simply clearing EDGE_EXECUTABLE on the
> appropriate edge when we simplify the conditional. That won't capture
> secondar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Seems like the changes suggested by Ian aren't enough:
libtool: compile: /<>/build/./gcc/gccgo
-B/<>/build/./gcc/ -B/usr/sh4-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/sh4-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /usr/sh4-linux-gnu/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 8 08:22:08 2017
New Revision: 255499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255499&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81303
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83321
Bug ID: 83321
Summary: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised
value in ira.c/ira-color.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83320
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83322
Bug ID: 83322
Summary: [8 Regression] r255469 causes: ICE: tree check:
expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (baselink)
in diag_attr_exclusions, at attribs.c:393
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83317
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Instead of -march=prescott we can use -msse2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83317
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ra
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #16 from Olivier Hainque ---
Author: hainque
Date: Fri Dec 8 09:33:08 2017
New Revision: 255501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Tristan Gingold
PR ada/81470
* dwarf2o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83301
--- Comment #6 from henning.schild at siemens dot com ---
@doko
I originally encountered that problem on Debian9. Rebuilt gcc packages with the
fix of PR78692 work fine, without further issues. The Debian-packages already
contain the fix for PR797
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
Bug ID: 83323
Summary: [8 Regression] 186.crafty miscompares
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #5 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The strange code is because we perform basic-block vectorization resulting in
>
> vect_cst__249 = {_251, _251, _251, _251, _334, _334, _334,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #6 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
I found the issue request related to the vactorization issues in second loop
(reduction uint->int).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82952
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Yeah, indeed. I'd say in this case the biggest problem is probably repeated
> traversal of SAVE_EXPRs in inchash::add_expr (which BTW doesn't seem to be
> somet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83321
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Any idea on which source file it is (or at least a small set of them)?
> What your -march=native is?
It happens almost an any source file, for example most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Note the first loop is now vectorized fine thus the strange code is gone.
-> fixed? (probably by the fix for PR83202)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ah.
(gdb) p ref
$1 = {ref = ,
base = , offset = 0, size = 8,
max_size = 0, ref_alias_set = -1, base_alias_set = -1, volatile_p = false}
Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83320
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Err, turned out a stupid mistake using new/free...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Dec 8 11:19:20 2017
New Revision: 255504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83206: Make native driver select fp-capable armv6 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #8 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
This is great changes and I see the first loop became vectorized for the test
example I provided with gcc-8.0 main trunk.
But I think the issue a bit more complicated. Vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #9 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 42813
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42813&action=edit
New reproducer
Slightly changed first loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 8 11:26:35 2017
New Revision: 255506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix PR83304
In PR83304 two insns are combined, where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82960
--- Comment #5 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Dec 8 11:33:09 2017
New Revision: 255508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255508&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/82960
* config/spu/spu.c (pad_bb): Onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82960
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Just to note this is _basic block vectorization_ triggering. Of course we do
vectorize basic blocks even when we do not vectorize any loop.
Is this about the "stupid" attempt to use as little AVX512 as po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #11 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
“Is this about the "stupid" attempt to use as little AVX512 as possible”
No, it is not.
I provided asm listing at the beginning with zmm only to illustrate the issue
more crystalize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
--- Comment #8 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the inconsistent behavior on AArch64, I will try to write a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #12 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
Your last proposal changed the code generated a bit.
Currently is shows:
test_bugzilla1.c:6:5: note: Cost model analysis:.
Vector inside of loop cost: 62576
Vector prologue co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83141
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 8 12:11:02 2017
New Revision: 255510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Prevent SRA from removing type changing assignment
2017-12-08 Martin J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83141
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on trunk, should I backport both patches to gcc7? to gcc6?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 82699, which changed state.
Bug 82699 Summary: ENDBR isn't generated at function entrance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, sergey.shalnov at intel dot com wrote:
> And it uses xmm+ vpbroadcastd to spill tmp[] to stack
> ...
> 1e7: 62 d2 7d 08 7c c9 vpbroadcastd %r9d,%xmm1
> 1ed: c4 c1 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83141
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83141
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
> Fixed on trunk, should I backport both patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
-O2 -funroll-and-jam miscompares.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83141
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase:
int x[1024], y[1024];
void __attribute__((noipa)) foo ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
{
x[i] = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < 1024; ++j)
if (y[j])
x[i] = y[j];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 82699, which changed state.
Bug 82699 Summary: ENDBR isn't generated at function entrance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I listed all the changes required. I'm
sure there will be many more, though likely mostly simple.
For the ones you mention, you'll need to add "sh" to the +build lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #7)
> Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I listed all the changes required. I'm
> sure there will be many more, though likely mostly simple.
Ah, I mis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Fails with -O2 -funroll-and-jam --param unroll-jam-min-percent=0
int x[1024], y[1024];
void __attribute__((noipa)) foo ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
{
x[i] = 0;
for (int j = 0; j <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
Bug ID: 83324
Summary: [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for
guaranteed tail calls
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
Bug ID: 83325
Summary: Compile time hog w/ -Os -fwrapv
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
[local count: 78951607]:
# ou_lsm.117_263 = PHI
# mb_lsm.120_277 = PHI
mb.74_96 = mb_lsm.120_277;
if (mb.74_96 <= 1)
goto ; [36.00%]
else
goto ; [64.00%]
[local count: 28422578]:
# ou_lsm.117_262 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 8 14:45:30 2017
New Revision: 255512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/81782
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #1 from m...@daniel-mendler.de ---
See also bug 77734
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326
Bug ID: 83326
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 648.exchange2_s ~6%
performance regression with r255267 (reproducer
attached)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Testing a fix now. Sorry for the delay.
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
