https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #47 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #45)
> > So to get back to this - my thinking was that for a reference REF I can do
> >
> > base = get_inner_reference (ref, &bitsize, &bitpos, &offset, &mode,
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 25 08:13:34 2019
New Revision: 268257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86865
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #2 from Andoni ---
8.2.0 I updated the version field too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> Thanks. This broke when the patch for PR 85458 was applied, and Andreas
> raised it on the gcc-patches thread:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #48 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, we can certainly try to enforce this. Just to make sure - this
> refers to TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (bfr, 0)), not the base of the
> component-ref chain eventually rooted here?
Yes, formally it's the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45531&action=edit
scalar loop cost patch
I'm testing this patch (not fixing the testcase, just improving costs).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd at verizon dot net,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #49 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Just to remind where we're coming from - we have
>
> unData.strMemHead.b30AddrL= ulAddr >> 2;
>
> where this is a 30bit bitfield store (at bit offset % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0)
> from a unsigned :30 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In the assembly I notice
vinsertf128 $0x1, 16(%rdi), %ymm4, %ymm2
...
vextractf128$0x1, %ymm2, %xmm1
somehow we fail to elide the initial %ymm2 build with the upper half
extraction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
With -mtune=core-avx2 we do
vmovups (%rdi), %xmm1
vmovups (%rdi), %ymm3
...
vextractf128$0x1, %ymm3, %xmm1
with -mtune=intel the even more weird
vmovups (%rdi), %xmm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
Bug ID: 89057
Summary: GCC 7->8 regression: ARM(64) ld3 st4 less optimized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
Bug ID: 89058
Summary: GCC 7->8 regression: ARM(64) ld3 st4 less optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 89058 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|segher at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber ---
I think the basic problem is that the LD --wrap feature works only with
undefined symbols references and not relocations:
See also:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2019-01/msg00204.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boazstud at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45523|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 86865, which changed state.
Bug 86865 Summary: [9 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-parallelize-all
-fstack-reuse=none -fwrapv -fno-tree-ch -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dominator-opts
-fno-tree-loop-ivcanon
https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 25 10:12:37 2019
New Revision: 268260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86865
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't understand how "gcc with multilib support for linux" can produce .dll
files, so I don't understand what you're doing.
Please provide the full configure command (which is shown in the output of 'gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89056
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, it allows it. It's undefined behaviour for your code to reach the end of
the function (because there's no return statement) so the compiler assumes that
the function will never reach that point. That m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89055
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #4 from Andoni ---
I am sorry for now explaining my self good enough. I am building a GCC
toolchain for Windows: a cross-compiler one with Linux as host and a native one
with Windows as host. Both toolchains are built in a Linux mach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
Bug ID: 89059
Summary: Once we emit switchconf tables, we don't optimize them
anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Ivanov ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> I think this is a dup of something but I can't remember the bug number right
> now; I'll search harder later...
Eric, take a look at bug #53431, I think that's wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Bug ID: 89060
Summary: Improve tail call optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #51 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, the (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #44)
> Created attachment 45523 [details]
> workaround
>
> So I am testing the following workaround, at least "most suitable" for
> branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ulrich (CCed) reported that.
If the __builtin_unreachable hint is inside of foo, we do optimize it properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Oops, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate for it, am testing that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89045
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
GNU C++17 9.0.1 20190125 (experimental) [trunk revision
268137] -flto -ffat-lto-objects -fdebug-types-section -g -std=gnu++17"
DW_AT_language: 4
DW_AT_name: "t.ii"
DW_AT_comp_dir: "/abuild/rguenther/trunk2-g/gcc"
DIE0: DW_TAG_structure_type (0x76896820)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89028
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
I am working on a patch to generate:
[hjl@gnu-hsw-1 pr89028]$ cat x.i
void
foo (char* restrict r, char* restrict a){
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++){
r[i] += a[i];
}
}
[hjl@gnu-hsw-1 pr89028]$ make x.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 25 12:46:24 2019
New Revision: 268264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Bug ID: 89061
Summary: GCC 9 introduces false positive in -Wjump-misses-init
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Applies to -fdebug-types-section as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89012
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
You can compile the code with the '-dp' option to see which insn patterns make
up the asm code. The pattern names will be emitted as comments in the asm
output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #32 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Fri Jan 25 13:29:06 2019
New Revision: 268265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][AArch64] Fix generation of tst (PR87763)
The TST instruction no longer m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ulidtko at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
It has internal linkage because one of its template arguments is a local class,
and it isn't instantiated because it isn't ever used. It's added to cgraph as
a possible devirtualization target.
I think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect there is even older bug which reports this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #23 from Wilco ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #22)
> helps even more. On Cortex-A72 it gives a bit more than 6% (vs 3%)
> improvement on parest, and about 5.3% on a more aggressive CPU.
> I tried unrolling 8x in a similar man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I suspect there is even older bug which reports this.
PR 77938
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
And even PR 59813.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01513.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Jan 25 16:57:32 2019
New Revision: 268272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix output_constructor_bitfield handling of wide bitfiel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89055
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 25 17:09:33 2019
New Revision: 268273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This is pretty unlikely in real code, but similar to Arm, the AArch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Vladimir,
I've tested the patch and checked the testcases.
The code is now better in most cases so no issue there. The testcases will need
to be updated but I can do that after the patch is committed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #6 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 25 17:55:25 2019
New Revision: 268277
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Guessing this might be another issue from pushdecl being called for
compound literals (r259641).
(Technically of course it's true that the jump misses the initialization
of the anonymous o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I did that too and proposed a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01525.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Bug ID: 89062
Summary: class template argument deduction failure with
parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
This may or may not be the same bug as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87709, I do not know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6)
> The patch in comment #3 seems to apply to gcc-8, but I haven't regtested it.
> Paul, do you intend to backport it?
It is regtesting on 8-branch as I write.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 87151, which changed state.
Bug 87151 Summary: allocating array of character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:40:14PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> --- snip ---
> >
> > Of course, I could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 85603, which changed state.
Bug 85603 Summary: ICE with character array substring assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66835
--- Comment #5 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Yes, It is fixed starting from 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67946
--- Comment #4 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
fixed starting from gcc 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
>
> Code compiles if I delete the suspicious code.
>
Unfortunately, there is a regression in the testsuite,
and even more unfortunate, the regression comes in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88969
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 25 19:50:55 2019
New Revision: 268278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-01-25 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/88969
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88969
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89063
Bug ID: 89063
Summary: [x86] lack of support for BEXTR from BMI extension
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88961
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
