https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
> I understand what jump threading does but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #8 from gnzlbg ---
> I think it should be sufficient to either mention which types have padding
> bits,
I am not sure. An intrinsic that tells me that _Bool has 7 padding bits does
not provide me with any new information. The C stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88832
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 88832 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. It is a developer only knob which can go away at any time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
> >
> > --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #12 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Look e.g. at -O2:
> void bar (int);
>
> void
> foo (int x)
> {
> int i = 0;
> if (x == 8)
> {
> x = 16;
> goto lab;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|armv7-a |arm, aarch64
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard maybe_unused attribute seems suitable. If an equality or
relational operator function has that attribute, don't warn if its result is
unused.
So weird operators with side effects can use the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it constrains GCC in future, which leaving it unspecified does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It works for me (glibc 2.22).
Can you quote the linker command-line (add -v to the compiler command)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88833
Bug ID: 88833
Summary: [SVE] Redundant moves for WHILELO-based loops
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
Bug ID: 88834
Summary: [SVE] Poor addressing mode choices for LD2 and ST2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88833
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #10 from gnzlbg ---
> But it constrains GCC in future, which leaving it unspecified does not.
Documenting whether GCC's C _Bool has the same valid and trap representations
as the target platform's ABI specifies is a trade-off: it doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88828
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Bug ID: 88835
Summary: [9 Regression] Maybe misleading
-Werror=format-overflow since r265648
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-1-14
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe it is the
@@ -25361,7 +25486,10 @@
return NULL_TREE;
case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
- return *tp;
+ if (dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (*tp)))
+ return *tp;
+ /* We'll che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
Bug ID: 88836
Summary: [SVE] Redundant PTEST in loop test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
Dennis Lubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plasmahh at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88837
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88837
Bug ID: 88837
Summary: [SVE] Poor vector construction code in VL-specific
mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 14 11:30:47 2019
New Revision: 267915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 add missing dg-require-filesystem-ts
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #14 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45425
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45425&action=edit
Patch
Hi,
In the attached patch, I cache results of malloc_candidate_p_1 and avoid
traversi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
Bug ID: 88838
Summary: [SVE] Use 32-bit WHILELO in LP64 mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #14)
> Created attachment 45425 [details]
> Patch
>
> Hi,
> In the attached patch, I cache results of malloc_candidate_p_1 and avoid
> traversing "back edges".
> Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88839
Bug ID: 88839
Summary: [SVE] Poor implementation of blend-like permutes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 14 12:01:01 2019
New Revision: 267916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/88796
* emit-rtl.h (struct rtl_data):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I disagree. Once it's documented, people will rely on it and scream if it
changes. Caveats about something maybe changing in future don't help. If it's
documented to behave one way today, people will depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #61 from Marian ---
Thanks for your reply
> The GCC 8 Changes page[*] says -Wstrict-overflow is deprecated (even if it is
> supposed to still work) and recommends to use
> -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow to get a run-time warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Bug ID: 88840
Summary: [9 Regression] std::allocator::construct signature
might be ill-formed now
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hm, maybe one could simply remove the substring during resolution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #41)
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
> >
> > --- Comment #38 from rsandifo at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88839
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
LLVM seems to hit a case where this matters, and I'm not sure if it's invalid
yet:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1121591
The __use_relocate member of std::vector will check the exception-sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #12 from gnzlbg ---
> I disagree. Once it's documented, people will rely on it and scream if it
> changes. Caveats about something maybe changing in future don't help. If it's
> documented to behave one way today, people will depend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> We could constrain the declaration with SFINAE, but the program would still
> be ill-formed (you still can't ask if the construct() call would throw,
> because th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
On GCC testcases one large group of MEMs only disambiguated through
base_alias_check is disambiguations agains DSEs group_info->base_mem
which is BLKmode mems based on some "base" pointer. This base_mem
la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88755
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
and:
$ g++ /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/catch3p.C
--param uninlined-thunk-insns=2062717165 -Og
during IPA pass: inline
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-dej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz ---
Experience from testing my simd implementation:
I had failures (2 ULP deviation from long double result) when using
auto __xx = abs(__x);
auto __yy = abs(__y);
auto __zz = abs(__z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
--- Comment #1 from Wei Xiao ---
My change (r265827) is based on the latest SDM (Intel® 64 and IA-32
Architectures Software Developer Manuals) which is incorrect for the fixupimm
intrinsics. I'm preparing a patch to fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #5 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
SignalHandler_Unix.h is in my application's code.
I've attached ASAN's debug output where I removed all messages talking abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #6 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 45426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45426&action=edit
ASAN debug output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> It's quite strange that following is fine:
>
> $ cat pr88587-2.c
> __attribute__((target("default"))) void a() {
> __attribute__((__vector_size__(4 * sizeof(float int b = {};
> }
>
> __attribute__((t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #7 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
I canse it plays a role:
I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
and glibc glibc-2.17-222.el7.i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> relayout_decl for this which is for example called from omp-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> > decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> > relayout_de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88841
Bug ID: 88841
Summary: Missed optimization transforming cascading ||s into a
bit select
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
Bug ID: 88842
Summary: missing optimization CSE, reassociation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
--- Comment #7 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #6)
> Here is a possibly related case:
>
> [...]
I think this is a different bug. GCC thinks the implicitly-deleted move
assignment operator `pair& pair::o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
--- Comment #1 from ptdrnvqd at 10mail dot org ---
from retweet danluu
↓
https://twitter.com/johnregehr/status/923682400676093952
not every day you run across a … easy optimization missing from all of LLVM,
GCC, and Intel CC…
↓
http://lists.llvm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #7)
> I canse it plays a role:
> I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
> which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
> and glibc glibc-2.17-222.el7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #5)
> ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
Yes, SEGFAULT happens right in the sanitizer code that's responsible
for creation of a thread. Thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
MCCCS changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2 from MCCCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #10 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
RHEL 7.5 which is the latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Bug ID: 88843
Summary: [9 Regression] make: Circular s-attr-common <-
insn-conditions.md dependency dropped.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88822
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If an rvalue's type (or, for that matter, an lvalue's type) is observed
with _Generic, the qualifiers should be consistently dropped.
If a type is observed with typeof, qualifiers need to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88844
Bug ID: 88844
Summary: poor range info for number of loop iterations with a
known upper bound
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
Bug ID: 88845
Summary: ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1010
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
After IRA, we have the following RTL with pseudo 124 being assigned to r9,
which does not meet the "f" constraint required by the inline asm:
(insn 6 5 7 2 (set (reg:SI 124)
(const_int 0 [0])) "pr888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Bug ID: 88846
Summary: [9 Regression] pr69776-2.c failure on 32 bit AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
(insn 9 2 7 2 (set (reg:DF 125)
(mem/u/c:DF (reg/f:SI 124) [0 S8 A64])) "pr69776-2.c":11:7 503
{*movdf_hardfloat32}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:SI 124)
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem:DF (reg:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:40:34 2019
New Revision: 267921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix location of tls_wrapper_fn (PR gcov-profile/88263).
2019-01-14 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
--enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
configure:3662: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3684:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88638 - FAIL: fsf-nsstring-format-1.s on darwin
gcc/c-family/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
> When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
> --enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
[.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #10)
> Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
> 9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I add __attribute__((optimize (0))) to:
static unsigned
do_rpo_vn (function *fn, edge entry, bitmap exit_bbs,
bool iterate, bool eliminate)
and recompile stage2 tree-ssa-sccvn.o + relink stage2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45427&action=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.ii.xz
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45428&action=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.s.xz
And resulting (bad) assembly
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
