[Bug c/101453] ICE on compilable code: *** buffer overflow detected ***: terminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101453 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug target/101448] Use GCC 9.3.0 to build Ceph crimson-osd on Arm64, linker failed for relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101448 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Zhao --- Hi Richard, Thanks for your clarification. Really appreciated! I think that should be the root cause.

[Bug target/94393] Powerpc suboptimal 64-bit constant comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94393 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW URL|

[Bug target/61032] rs6000 code gen suffers from lack of address_cost

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61032 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|amodra at gmail dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/101110] [12 regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/950704-1.c fails after r12-1546

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101110 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4) > Does this still fail? When i look at a cross compiler listing I do not see > any differences from ranger in the listing. Should be fixed at d48320083c9a2bdf0ddac6

[Bug testsuite/101461] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl test cases fail after r12-2266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101461 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/101462] [12 regression] ICE on aarch64 after r12-2292

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101462 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-16 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/101464] Replace zveroupper with vpxor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101464 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- But in the long discussion involving vzeroupper and HTM aborts in glibc memory functions it came up that vpxor is _not_ properly clearing the upper state and thus does _not_ remove the penalty that followin

[Bug tree-optimization/101466] Optimizers should fold bounds checking for -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101466] Optimizers should fold bounds checking for -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466 --- Comment #9 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > I don't see what we can optimize for the reduced testcases. void square(unsigned t, int *tt) { if (t<=0) __builtin_abort(); tt[0] = 0; if (t<=1) __bui

[Bug tree-optimization/101466] Optimizers should fold bounds checking for -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > > I don't see what we can optimize for the reduced testcases. > > void square(unsigned t, int *tt) > { > if (t<=

[Bug tree-optimization/101466] Optimizers should fold bounds checking for -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- With some hand-waving we could generate void square(unsigned t, int *tt) { if (t<=4) __builtin_abort(); tt[0] = 0; tt[1] = 0; tt[2] = 0; tt[3] = 0; tt[4] = 0; } but I don't see h

<    1   2