https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it is a dup of bug 56547.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 56547 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Not sure yet whether this is actually target specific.
It is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc
commit r9-9709-g5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96563
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
It seems like GCC does better for the unrolled case as of now on trunk and
seemingly since GCC 11, though the operation is done in a different way due to
`((unsigned)x <= 9) ? 8 : 4;` being expanded differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee
commit r9-9711-g3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 93925, which changed state.
Bug 93925 Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a
procedure pointer as argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn,
at recog.c:2770)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 51418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51418&action=edit
build.log from compiling squashfs-tools-4.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok.
But does that explain why defining an explicit constructor cause g++ to accept
the class as default-constructible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> The issue was originally observed on a native s390 machine
> (s390-ibm-linux-gnu) but I ended up minimising the ICE using cvise via
> cross. I hit the issue when buildin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102111
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
Bug ID: 102223
Summary: no warning whel calling member function on dangling
reference
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis ---
Sorry, I copied the wrong snippet, it should have been
#include
struct s{
s() noexcept;
~s();
int value() const noexcept;
};
s foo() noexcept;
int bar(){
const auto& v = std::move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The problem is dead code:
> language_names_p_9 = &MEM [(void *)_4 + 24B];
> MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 24B] = "";
> MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 32B] = "";
>
ble-libada
--disable-systemtap --disable-valgrind-annotations --disable-vtable-verify
--disable-libvtv --without-zstd --enable-lto --without-isl
--disable-libsanitizer --disable-default-pie --enable-default-ssp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210906 (ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102134
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c
commit r12-3372-g74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102115
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101902
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672
commit r12-3375-g546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|False positive |[12 Regression] missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed if move the sink2 pass before phiopt4 could restore the previous
instructons for this case:
test:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
cmp w0, 1
ldp w0, w1, [x1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008
--- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
phiopt4 and sink2 are doing reverse optimizations:
pr102008.c.200t.phiopt4:
Hoisting adjacent loads from 3 and 4 into 2: _6 = foo_4(D)->a; _5 =
foo_4(D)->b;
pr102008.c.202t.sink2:
Sinki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Verified 470.lbm doesn't show regression on Power8 with Ofast.
runtime is 141 sec for r12-897, without that patch it is 142 sec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Bug ID: 102224
Summary: Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
(Note: this is a miscompile because it compiles as equivalent to `return 0;` as
that's what `xorps xmm0, xmm0` will do)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
(PS: by "x and y" I mean "the two arguments". If they're the same, GCC should
obviously just optimize this to an abs as that's what it ends up being)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also seems like this might be unique to x86 as this compiles fine on Aarch64
(though while it doesn't try to do anything stupid like xoring the result with
itself, it does still not optimize the XOR_SIGN to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Component|tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was just a recent patch which touched this in the x86 backend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #5 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Actually it seems to me like this is a GCC 9 regression, ever since this
pattern exists: GCC 9, 10 and 11 emit the exact same faulty code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regession] wrong code |[9/10/11/12 regession]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #7 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also, `-ffast-math` seems to "fix" this, since in that case the code is
recognized as an ABS_EXPR pattern and as such results in the same code being
emitted without the xor. Is there any reason this isn't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
Bug ID: 102225
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at
analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102226
Bug ID: 102226
Summary: ICE with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=128
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think I have a patch which disables the proping in forwprop that creates the
&MEM stuff (it is done still by forwprop just not in this location and via
match instead). The waring is now gone and the code l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|9.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
It's fold_plusminus_mult_expr doing this on GENERIC already. I suppose FMA
detection might want to consider undoing this. It's also questionable whether
transforming a * b + a this way is profitable but I
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
