https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102179
Bug ID: 102179
Summary: ICE during dom: tree check: expected ssa_name, have
integer_cst
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 102179, which changed state.
Bug 102179 Summary: ICE during dom: tree check: expected ssa_name, have
integer_cst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102179
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102173
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #2)
> Appeared after r12-3278 g:823685221de986afb729910a6f2237f07a377f17
Yes caused by r12-3278.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102180
Bug ID: 102180
Summary: Improve checking of assume size array spec
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
to v = std::ranges::iota_view(static_cast(0),
static_cast(100));
auto b = v.begin();
std::advance(b, static_cast(1));
}
gcc version: 12.0.0 20210901 (experimental)
Error messages:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20210902/include/c++/12.0.0/bits/stl_iterator_base_funcs.h:
In instantiation of '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testcases that fail:
gcc.target/aarch64/vmov_n_1.c
at -O1:t.c: In function ‘test_vmov_n_f32’:
t.c:165:10: error: missing definition
for SSA_NAME: .MEM_161 in statement:
# VUSE <.MEM_161>
_162 = BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It compiles with -std=gnu++20 but not -std=c++20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You need to use std::ranges::advance here, because iota_view is "special".
The reason std::advance doesn't work is that the type of v.begin() does not
meet the Cpp17InputIterator requirements, because its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
--- Comment #3 from Raffael Casagrande ---
thanks for the fast response. I can switch over to std::ranges::advance.
MSVC compiles the snippet without problems...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/iterator/advance says "InputIt must meet the
requirements of LegacyInputIterator."
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/InputIterator gives a sample
concept you ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #23)
> Anyway, patch in testing.
Did your patch fix the problem or do we need to take another run at this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51397|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #12)
> > Patch submitted:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568143.html
>
> Looks like Will r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #25 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #24)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #23)
> > Anyway, patch in testing.
>
> Did your patch fix the problem or do we need to take another run at th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102181
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100907
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is a workaround for this included in commit
93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
that doesn't fully solve the problem: when "long double" and "float128" are
different types with the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
This seems to have been fixed in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The second function is able to be optimized since GCC 9 with bswap producing:
load_dst_16 = MEM [(unsigned char *)&x];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #5 from Gabriel Ravier ---
It may have been doing it in GCC 8 (and 9, and 10), but it didn't in 11, and
presumably this was also the case in trunk back in February.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #6 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also the second example wasn't misoptimized, on the contrary it was the most
reasonable portable function I could write that would work equivalently to the
first *and* that GCC would optimize ideally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53665
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 98908, which changed state.
Bug 98908 Summary: Failure to optimize arithmetic involving struct members into
operating on the entire struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #8 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Well, fixing a bug filed in 2021 in GCC 9 seems quite hard. Are you confused
about the nature of the bug ? The first example in the description *is* the one
whose optimization the bug is about, and it is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
--- Comment #9 from Gabriel Ravier ---
PS: I had missed at the time that the bug wasn't present in GCC 10/9/8 though,
so perhaps it should be considered as having been a GCC 11 regression that got
fixed in trunk ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Failure to optimize |[11 Regression] arithmetic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 98908, which changed state.
Bug 98908 Summary: [11 Regression] arithmetic involving struct members into
operating on the entire struct fails at -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
What|R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101849
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de2114d2f1792beae55dccb512c4c521b934e72b
commit r10-10091-gde2114d2f1792beae55dccb512c4c521b934e72b
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101849
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #15 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch updated:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578740.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101157
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
Are the ppc tests and s390 bootstrap still broken?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21805
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24049
Bug 24049 depends on bug 21805, which changed state.
Bug 21805 Summary: loop optimizers are not GC safe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21805
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101157
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The stack limit test case mostly has worked since just after this was opened
(one short span where it failed again) but I don't know what fixed it. The
other test case has worked fine since just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102166
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de6795bbf58c7085933a1f86a88d8193ea72e26b
commit r12-3323-gde6795bbf58c7085933a1f86a88d8193ea72e26b
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102166
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:259945a0a4880b66f93f71eebe70f78c91e02d5e
commit r11-8953-g259945a0a4880b66f93f71eebe70f78c91e02d5e
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
Bug ID: 102182
Summary: Runtime error for
gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-float16.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2005-01-25 03:37:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Reproduced case.
#include
int
main (void)
{
static volatile unsigned int ivin, ivout;
static volatile _Float16 fv1, fv2;
ivin = ((unsigned int)1);
fv1 = ((unsigned int)1);
fv2 = ivin;
ivout = fv2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50994
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102183
Bug ID: 102183
Summary: sccvn compare predicated result issue in
vn_nary_op_insert_into
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
during pass_expand we got
(debug_insn 24 23 0 (debug_marker) "test1.c":10:3 -1
(nil))
;; fv2.1_3 ={v} fv2;
(insn 25 24 0 (set (reg:HF 84 [ fv2.1_3 ])
(mem/v/c:HF (symbol_ref:SI ("fv2.1") [flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102184
Bug ID: 102184
Summary: Explicit template instantiation is wrongly considered
as specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
101 - 171 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
