https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110658
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Bug ID: 110754
Summary: assume create spurious load for volatile variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, grepping tmp-mddump.md files shows only x86 having ashlti3 and ashrti3
expanders.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Bug ID: 110755
Summary: Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
The biggest issue here is that the both ifcombine (and reassociate) and phiopt
does not touch the case where there could be a trapping oeprator to move it and
combine it with a previous operator. This could/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, this might be the case where you need -frounding-math since we don't
expectly implement the pragma.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Hmm, this might be the case where you need -frounding-math since we don't
> expectly implement the pragma.
Indeed the original glibc code is compiled with -fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
One thing I noticed is that:
_2 = MAX_EXPR <_6, a3_7(D)>;
_3 = MAX_EXPR <_2, a3_7(D)>;
Is not optimized at all.
(for minmax (min max)
(simplify
(minmax:c (minmax:c@2 @0 @1) @0)
@2))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
Bug ID: 110756
Summary: [14 Regression] commit g:92d1425ca78 causes failures
in g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Bug ID: 110757
Summary: 7% parest regression on zen3 -Ofast -march=native
-flto between g:4dbb3af1efe55174 (2023-07-14 00:54)
and g:a5088dc3f5ef73c8 (2023-07-17 03:24)
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Summary|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
Bug ID: 110758
Summary: 8% hmmer regression on zen1 and zen3 with -Ofast
-march=native -flto between g:8377cf1bf41a0a9d
(2023-07-05 01:46) and g:3a61ca1b9256535e (2023-07-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #15 from JuzheZhong ---
I am wondering: do we have have other situations need "undef" value to do
optimizations? If yes, I am aggree with Richard that we need to support "undef"
value. But "undef" value in Gimple IR support would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Version|13.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this is most likely the profile updates changes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Bug ID: 110759
Summary: IEEE Fortran change broke RISC-V linux build
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Created attachment 55593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55593&action=edit
Failing build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|IEEE Fortran ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see how it could have broke riscv only ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
It may have broken other targets - I can only confirm with builds for RISCV so
I didn't want to speculate too much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
Bug ID: 110760
Summary: slp introduces new wrapped arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems like lowering passes everything via value rather than some stuff by
reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > Is this a bug? The standard defines accessing volatile objects as
> > side-effects so it's not allowed to merge volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
always just wrap ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|slp introduces new wrapped |slp introduces new overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Ah! Thanks for the analysis. Should I submit the following patch to the mailing
list then?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
index 35a5bb027ffe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110664
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, this would be a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
> always just wrap ...
That makes sense. But on the other hand, PR 110495 is a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Krister Walfridsson from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
> > always just wrap ...
>
> Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, rejects-valid
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110387
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a0aff76a9980488a760ece72323e7ed1f2c0e5e
commit r14-2688-g5a0aff76a9980488a760ece72323e7ed1f2c0e5e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
commit r14-2689-g7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
commit r14-2689-g7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110455
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4913a19d24a794c97f38d9c65c47c1fb9f2140c
commit r14-2690-ga4913a19d24a794c97f38d9c65c47c1fb9f2140c
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110387
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 110433, which changed state.
Bug 110433 Summary: ASAN reports mismatching new/delete when compiling analyzer
testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110455
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110612
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #16 from xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
> >
> > --- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What exact target? Is this the elf target or the linux target?
I just bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #5 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Linux target rv32gc-ilp32d, rv64gc-lp64d.
Newlib still builds successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Awesome, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c6231c05bdccab3a21abcbb75e2094ea3e98782
commit r14-2692-g1c6231c05bdccab3a21abcbb75e2094ea3e98782
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri May 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98375
Bug 98375 depends on bug 89701, which changed state.
Bug 89701 Summary: Provide -fcf-protection=branch,return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> One thing I noticed is that:
> _2 = MAX_EXPR <_6, a3_7(D)>;
> _3 = MAX_EXPR <_2, a3_7(D)>;
>
> Is not optimized at all.
>
> (for minmax (min max)
> (simpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110729
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6894581ac453361e3fb4e1ffd54f9499acb87466
commit r14-2693-g6894581ac453361e3fb4e1ffd54f9499acb87466
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110744
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6654c08fde11890d621fa7831180d410054568a
commit r14-2694-ga6654c08fde11890d621fa7831180d410054568a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110744
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f32518726ee8e836d12d49aec8432679fcc42503
commit r14-2695-gf32518726ee8e836d12d49aec8432679fcc42503
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> * g++.target/i386/pr61747.C: New testcase.
The testcase fails now, I don't know what caused it to fail though:
FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr61747.C -std=g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110729
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #5 from Kewe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #15)
> I am wondering: do we have have other situations need "undef" value to do
> optimizations? If yes, I am aggree with Richard that we need to support
> "undef"
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747
>
> --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
An assumption like this is quite useless anyway, but ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
