https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
It also seems when both vector size are available for vectorization, vectorizer
won't compare different vector size with costs, it just use first vector size
it tried, normally it will be target preferred_simd_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
Downstream MacPorts ticket related to this:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/59113
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92328
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
Another related downstream MacPorts ticket besides the one already under "See
Also": https://trac.macports.org/ticket/59113
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
Related downstream issue from MacPorts: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/59113
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92346
--- Comment #2 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This code is clearly undefined.
>
> First you say eax is in eax and then then you say the register gets
> clobbered by the inline-as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92346
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to wierton from comment #2)
> This code can reproduce the phenomenon and there are no output constraints.
> I do understand that the declaration %eax in eax is conflict with the inline
> assembly cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
Bug ID: 92347
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1,
at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91945
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Martin: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
@hj Maybe we should set -mprefer-vector-width=128 as default, I'll have a test
on SPEC2017 to see the influence.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92348
Bug ID: 92348
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
int_const_binop)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed now (there's PR92239 for a similar issue)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
Bug ID: 92349
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vrp_prop::check_array_ref at
gcc/tree-vrp.c:4181 since r277728
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92348
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92346
--- Comment #4 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to wierton from comment #2)
> > This code can reproduce the phenomenon and there are no output constraints.
> > I do unders
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Another testcase:
% gcc-10.0.0-alpha20191103 -O2 -Warray-bounds -c
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20080222-1.c
during GIMPLE pass: vrp
gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92345
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92339
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92350
Bug ID: 92350
Summary: Document non-standard namelist quote handling in
gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92339
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92343
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47164
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47164&action=edit
gcc10-pr92343.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92350
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Just found:
gfortran.texi – Extensions to namelist
When writing a namelist, if no @code{DELIM=} is specified, by default a
double quote is used to delimit character strings. If -std=F95, F2003,
or F200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92351
Bug ID: 92351
Summary: [10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 -match=skylake
since r277569
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92351
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92351
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47165&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92350
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
For the added text, cf. PR 60148 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00145.html
I missed that patch when writing this PR because it wasn't posted to
gcc-patches@ :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 4 09:11:26 2019
New Revision: 277768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix hash_operand for fields of a CONSTRUCTOR.
2019-11-04 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Similar to what Richard says, this sounds like a latent bug. One of
the effects of that rev was to prevent unnecessary invalidation of
equivalences based on the stack pointer and frame pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> If you have handy access to the reproducer, is it -g that makes
> the difference?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #2 from Mick P. ---
Of course, GCC is always right. Even though other types are not considered
candidates for indexing the array, when the only other use of [] is operator[],
which accepys any type... and switch statements should try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 4 10:01:22 2019
New Revision: 277769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgomp/testsuite - use unique numbers with Fortran's 'stop'
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> It also seems when both vector size are available for vectorization,
> vectorizer won't compare different vector size with costs, it just use first
> vector size it t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92330
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Look for issue_strict_overflow_warning / fold_overflow_warning and the
classification enum.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 4 10:08:22 2019
New Revision: 21
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=21&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92301
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92288
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe this is now fixed (and thus dup of PR92301)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
> Is there an easy way I can catch any of them that fire?
Now fixed by using unique numbers in libgomp/testsuite.
But replacing 'stop' by 'error stop' is one option - th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Very few micro-architectures would benefit from auto-inc style addressing in a
sequence like this. With modern super-scaler systems you want to use offset
addressing where possible (from a common base).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So shortest pass motion that helps this case:
>
> Index: gcc/passes.def
> ===
> --- gcc/passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 92288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92288
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92288, which changed state.
Bug 92288 Summary: [10 Regression] 502.gcc_r ICE with -O3 -march=skylake
-fno-checking since r277621
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92288
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Nichols A. Romero from comment #0)
> For the OpenACC program, it may be that this is part of the OpenACC spec
> that has not been implemented yet.
[That's detach/attach] This OpenACC 2.6 feature
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92325
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92095
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
Summary|ICE on sparc-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Related, the following is miscompiled at -O3.
unsigned b[1024];
int __attribute__((noipa))
foo (int n)
{
int res = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
res = res > b[i] ? res : b[i];
}
retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I probably missed a later fix that got made to the trunk version of the test.
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
All compilers agree, because it's what the standard says should happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #19 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
5 years...
Can anybody fix it? It is real issue on real world code:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
$ gfortran -v -c -O2 -mcmodel=large diffeq.f
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFAULT=1
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
same nondetermernistic ICE seen with r276439 from the gcc-7-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #5)
> same nondetermernistic ICE seen with r276439 from the gcc-7-branch.
What says valgrind about that please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
> Very few micro-architectures would bene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 92344, which changed state.
Bug 92344 Summary: Missing considering fre optimization of vector load in
auto-vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92352
Bug ID: 92352
Summary: ICE in force_constant_size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92344
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92318
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 47167
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47167&action=edit
valgrind output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
It's still failing on trunk:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-11/msg00131.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
So taking the example I posted in the initial report and compiling with trunk
for arm -mcpu=cortex-m4 -mthumb -Os, we get:
ldr r3, .L2
movsr2, #1
str r2, [r3, #2060]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92353
Bug ID: 92353
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/hppa/shadd-3.c scan-assembler-times
sh.add 5
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
>
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
...
> But there's no real need to do this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
I think I removed TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_PRIORITY stuff...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2010-12-14 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I suspect TARGET_LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS is only applied during
> reload/LRA, correct?
No, it's calle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Reload also had a hook TARGET_LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS as well. But it had
the same problems - lack of context leading to guesswork and therefore too
local or too general fix-ups.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92354
Bug ID: 92354
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
lookup_page_table_entry)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92355
Bug ID: 92355
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault crash_signal toplev.c:325
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 4 14:14:43 2019
New Revision: 277781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport Fortran BIND(C) fixes
gcc/fortran/
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 4 14:14:43 2019
New Revision: 277781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport Fortran BIND(C) fixes
gcc/fortran/
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
