https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
>
> Jan Hubicka changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102714
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, duan.db at linux dot alibaba.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102714
>
> --- Comment #10 from Bo Duan ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103085
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103091
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> which is consider CD5.
That's just a detail of which draft of was included in, which doesn't mean
much. More relevant is that it was approved as a DR so it ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103092
Bug ID: 103092
Summary: Non-throwing function pointer can point to a
throwing-function in C++14
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
With attachment 51726 and current trunk, the present damage is 22% for the
ltrans105 unit, which AFAICT, is the worst offender. This is much better than
the original 44%, but still not ideal.
After some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103093
Bug ID: 103093
Summary: ice in get_imports, at gimple-range-gori.cc:221
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103046
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:155f6b2be421b0f84e478e34fbf72ee0bb9e36bc
commit r12-4933-g155f6b2be421b0f84e478e34fbf72ee0bb9e36bc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103092
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
G++ does not give an error for the example in p5:
class A { /* ... */ };
void (*pf1)(); // no exception specification
void (*pf2)() throw(A);
void f() {
pf1 = pf2; // OK: pf1 is less restrictive
pf2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103042
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103042
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
ok, then I don't think sparc can vectorize these cases at all through SLP, so I
will just skip them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
Bug ID: 103094
Summary: [12 Regression] Incorrect codegen from AArch64
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103095
Bug ID: 103095
Summary: Option to force no overalignment
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
Bug ID: 103096
Summary: Compiling never ends (at least not in resonable time -
less than 10 mins)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103097
Bug ID: 103097
Summary: ICE in move_for_stack_reg, at reg-stack.c:1186
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
> For the record, I hate the SPEC build system :).
Then you're the first one! No, just kidding, it's cumbersome, and feel free to
contact me with questions regarding that...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Cooper ---
Apologies for the delay, but I do now have a working prototype of Xen with
CET-IBT active, using the current version of these patches.
The result actually builds back to older versions of GCCs, but the lac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #21)
> > For the record, I hate the SPEC build system :).
>
> Then you're the first one! No, just kidding, it's cumbersome, and feel free
> to contact me with questi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
Bug ID: 103098
Summary: bogus error: the last argument must be an 8-bit
immediate
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103093
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #21)
> > > For the record, I hate the SPEC build system :).
> >
> > Then you're the first one! No, just kidding, it's c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Built-in-Functions.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-05
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Celba ---
But shouldn't the compiler end in all cases with some error?
There should be a depth instantiation limit which is reached and compilation
ended.
No matter how non-sensible the input is. My input is quite sensi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] ICE in |ICE in put_TImodes, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103093
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103097
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> The following file is miscompiled:
>
> gfortran -c -o m_MergeSorts.fppized.o -I. -Iinclude -Inetcdf/include -O2
> -march=native -g -std=legacy m_MergeSorts.fppi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> That is, is signed overflow undefined in overflow?
Errr, "is signed overflow undefined for integer(kind=4)?"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe the compiler could notice that there is only one qHash function template,
and so realize that the instantiation recursion of qHash instantiating
qHash instantiating qHash etc. will never terminate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
Bug ID: 103099
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE tree check: expected ssa_name,
have debug_expr_decl in split_function, at
ipa-split.c:1397 since r12-4920-g1ece90ffa9ce63b4
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-05
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Maybe the compiler could notice that there is only one qHash function
> template, and so realize that the instantiation recursion of qHash
> instantiating qH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102955
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14c7041a1f00ef4ee9a036e0b369c97646db5b5c
commit r12-4934-g14c7041a1f00ef4ee9a036e0b369c97646db5b5c
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102955
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Simplified version without the noise:
[local count: 56063504182]:
_134 = M.10_120 + 1;
if (_71 <= _134)
goto ; [11.00%]
else
goto ; [89.00%]
...
...
[local count: 49896518755]:
[l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We'd need next to the instantiation depth limit something that would be
incremented for every nested instantiation and when this counter reaches some
limit, also fail like reaching the instantiation depth li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #5)
> > That is, is signed overflow undefined in overflow?
>
> Errr, "is signed overflow undefined for integer(kind=4)?"
Yes it is undefined. Figures spec would hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Looks like it's wrong from expand already, it's expanding into overlapping
registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
30 would be too low for "reasonable" code, like a std::variant or std::tuple of
31 types, if some algorithm is implemented as a recursive template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #5)
> > > That is, is signed overflow undefined in overflow?
> >
> > Errr, "is signed overflow undefined for integer(k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #1)
> > Looks like it's wrong from expand already, it's expanding into overlapping
> > registers.
>
> Maybe a dup of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Well, the usual thing to do is to check max_size_known_p () and
> if maybe_ne (max_size, size) then use [offset, max_size] for
> disambiguation. I think for modref you can do the same - i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If by fail you mean that it doesn't update the memory if the memory isn't
> equal to expected, sure, but do you mean it can fail spuriously, not update
> the memory ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> So the question to the reporter is does -fwrapv works for the original
> testcase?
So adding -fwrapv does not help, it still crashes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
On 11/5/21 13:32, hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
> |+ " - Paradoxical ragne. Ignoring\n");|
s/ragne/range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> This bootstraps/regtests and fixes the testcase. Does it look sane to
> you?
Note this ended in bugzilla and not in gcc-patches ML.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
>
> --- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > Well, the usual th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> > This bootstraps/regtests and fixes the testcase. Does it look sane to
> > you?
>
> Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
And note that the benchmark survives -fsanitize=undefined run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h b/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h
> > index 9976e489697..1b51323175b 100644
> > --- a/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h
> > +++ b/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h
> > @@ -813,6 +818,20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Bug ID: 103100
Summary: unaligned access generated when zero-initializing
large locals with SIMD-instructions and -O2
-mstrict-align
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. the builtin is often used in a loop where the user does his own atomic
load first and decides what to do based on that.
Say for
float f;
void
foo ()
{
#pragma omp atomic
f += 3.0f;
}
with -O2 -fope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix at breitweiser dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) l
1392 gimple *stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
1393 bool remove = false;
1394 if (gimple_clobber_p (stmt) || is_gimple_debug (stmt))
1395FOR_EACH_SSA_TREE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Instead of generating:
movlf(%rip), %eax
.L2:
movd%eax, %xmm0
addss .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
movd%xmm0, %edx
lock cmpxchgl %edx, f(%rip)
jne .L2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
On 11/5/21 8:02 AM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
>
> --- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Simplified version without the noise:
>
> [local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Of course
BDESC (OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, 0, CODE_FOR_sse2_ashlv1ti3,
"__builtin_ia32_pslldqi128", IX86_BUILTIN_PSLLDQI128, UNKNOWN, (int)
V2DI_FTYPE_V2DI_INT_CONVERT)
looks suspicious, ashlv1ti3 doesn't sou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-05
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> Looking at the particular ICE, this looks like a fortran frond-end issue -
> this is during compilation and not during link and I do not see why Fortran
> should pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
And WPA cgraph dump tells:
quick_sort_1.1/213 (quick_sort_1) @0x774c2550
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly
References:
Referring:
Read from file: quicksort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> Instead of generating:
>
> movlf(%rip), %eax
> .L2:
> movd%eax, %xmm0
> addss .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
> movd%xmm0, %edx
> lock c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #12)
> I dont understand why? isnt m.10_120 killed in bb20? whats the basis
> for threading that? I dont see it
Huh. The last thing we do in the solver is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103059
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 regression][VAX] ICE in |[12 regression][VAX] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103070
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regression] ICE in |ICE in
|gimple_call_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Frank changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.boesing at gmx dot de
--- Comment #7 from Fran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Mine.
> This should fix it (untested):
And yes it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
