https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109549
--- Comment #13 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
I will take it and I've already prepared a patch. Currently, I'm still testing
the patch. I hope I get enough compute resources in order to make it into GCC
14.
Anyhow, you can assign the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Perhaps
> --- fold-const.cc.jj8 2024-03-11 22:37:29.0 +0100
> +++ fold-const.cc 2024-03-22 19:31:44.189686120 +0100
> @@ -7104,6 +7104,27 @@ extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114435
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 57806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57806&action=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736
--- Comment #26 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Do we also need to adjust TSAN? There is a bugreport that KCSAN does work
correctly with the named address spaces.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114449
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note we do unroll the loop with -O3 but only late after which we do not re-do
bswap recognition (which happens before loop optimization). At -O2 we
don't unroll because that increases code-size too much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109549
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
Hi Stefan, you should be able to change your email on bugzilla to
@gcc.gnu.org and gain permissions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it should.
E.g. for
int __seg_fs a;
void
foo (int __seg_fs *p)
{
a = *p;
}
the instrumentation is
_5 = __builtin_return_address (0);
__builtin___tsan_func_entry (_5);
__builtin___tsan_read4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57807
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57807&action=edit
gcc14-pr111736-tsan.patch
Untested patch for tsan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #24 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #23)
> * How do you create the benchmarks?
https://github.com/mattkretz/simd-benchmarks
Look at hypot3.cpp :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Bug ID: 114452
Summary: Functions invoked through compile-time table of
function pointers not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736
--- Comment #29 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Do we also need to adjust TSAN? There is a bugreport that KCSAN does work
correctly with the named address spaces.(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment
#28)
> Created attachment 57807 [details]
> gcc14-pr11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111573
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chfast at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica ---
I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not optimized:
using F = int (*)(int) noexcept;
inline int impl(int x) noexcept { return x; }
void test(int z[2]) noexcept {
static cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #2)
> I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not
> optimized:
>
>
> using F = int (*)(int) noexcept;
>
> inline int impl(int x) noexcept { retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114453
Bug ID: 114453
Summary: 32-bit go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16016.go FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
Andrea Agostini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.agostini.sax at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> The following testcase at least reproduces the unsigned multiplication
> issue, but doesn't reproduce the signed multiplication nor division by -1.
> int
> mai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109549
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |stefansf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114454
Bug ID: 114454
Summary: go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue27836.go FAILs with LANG=C
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114455
Bug ID: 114455
Summary: [C++26] P2748R5 - Disallow binding a returned
reference to a temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114456
Bug ID: 114456
Summary: [C++26] P0609R3 - Attributes for structured bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114457
Bug ID: 114457
Summary: [C++26] P2795R5 - Erroneous behavior for uninitialized
reads
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114458
Bug ID: 114458
Summary: [C++26] P2573R2 - = delete("reason");
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114459
Bug ID: 114459
Summary: [C++26] P2893R3 - Variadic friends
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114460
Bug ID: 114460
Summary: [C++26] P3106R1 - Clarifying rules for brace elision
in aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114461
Bug ID: 114461
Summary: [C++26] P3034R1 - Disallow module declarations to be
macros
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
Bug ID: 114462
Summary: [C++26] P2809R3 - Trivial infinite loops are not
undefined behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114463
Bug ID: 114463
Summary: go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue4458.go FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Apart from marking via -ffinite-loops GCC considers loops without an exit as
not required to make "forward progress". That's more than just a constant
controlling expression but should allow optimizing mos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And another case to watch for is:
void
qux ()
{
while (const bool b = bar ())
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
not sure if that's the right forum here, however:
- in both Debian and Ubuntu, we're currently doing
the time_t 64bit transition, for gnat that is
moving from packages built with gnat-12 (32bit time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114441
--- Comment #5 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> (In reply to Yang Wang from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > This is not a GCC bug,
> > >
> > > You need to use -mcmodel=large if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114464
Bug ID: 114464
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building tdscpp-20240212
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114464
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Ah, yes, sorry. Reducing too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114465
Bug ID: 114465
Summary: "x % const1 % const2" should be optimized if const1 %
const2 == 0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114465
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59926
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055
Bug 58055 depends on bug 57176, which changed state.
Bug 57176 Summary: copy elision with function arguments passed by value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114447
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
Bug ID: 114466
Summary: mips: ICE during RTL pass: zero_call_used_regs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114467
Bug ID: 114467
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rene at exactcode dot de
--- Comment #16 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Also:
>Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
>-freport-bug).
But no need here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #7 from Naveen N Rao ---
I have been looking at an alternative approach to see if we can move the entire
function patching sequence out of line. However, the approach I am considering
is very specific to the linux kernel, and I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114468
Bug ID: 114468
Summary: unixbench compilation performance results vary with
different gcc compilers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114381
--- Comment #2 from Roland Mainz ---
Same issue happens on Cygwin 3.6.x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114337
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114469
Bug ID: 114469
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/bitint-64.c failure with -O2 -flto
-std=c23 -fwrapv
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
--- Comment #4 from René Rebe ---
Created attachment 57809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57809&action=edit
preprocessed source from -freport-bug
preprocessed source from -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114468
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc 10 is no longer supported. Can you test a newer gcc? Register allocation is
always improving between versions so this might be already fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #9 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 57810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57810&action=edit
Patch to fix the issue
I was unable to create a reproducer in C for the tests.
It seems the problem was actually in l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114439
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code with -Oz |[13/14 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113314
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
[...]
> 70redo_next:
> 71 next = fdtab[fd].update.next;
> 72 if (next > -2)
> 73goto done;
> 74
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114470
Bug ID: 114470
Summary: [OOP] Defined, type-bound assignment(=) of component
not called within class, allocatable parent
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114466
--- Comment #6 from René Rebe ---
ok - good to know. I guess someone should tell the openssh developers and maybe
gcc should error out with a warning. Actually if gcc would error out it would
signal openssl's configure not to automatically try t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, with additional -mno-red-zone there is still movement of these insns,
though they
leaq128(%rbx), %rsp ! level 0
movq%r13, %rsi
movl%r10d, %edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114471
Bug ID: 114471
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building liblc3-1.0.4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114460
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114471
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
The original failed with:
```
../liblc3-1.0.4/src/spec.c: In function ‘quantize’:
../liblc3-1.0.4/src/spec.c:210:21: error: type mismatch in binary expression
210 | LC3_HOT static void quantize(enum lc3_dt dt,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114471
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57812
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57812&action=edit
spec.i.orig.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114456
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll probably take this for stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114458
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Considering taking this for stage1 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, if there is a declaration in the condition, then it is not a valid trivial
empty iteration statement.
Anyway, I'd say cp_fold should for WHILE_STMT, DO_STMT and FOR_STMT if the body
is
a STATEMENT_LIST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
constexpr bool foo () { return true; }
volatile int v;
void
bar (int x)
{
switch (x)
{
case 0:
while (foo ()) ;
break;
case 1:
while (foo ()) {}
break;
case 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114471
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
float quantize_x_1, quantize_x_0;
short *quantize_xq;
short quantize_x0;
void quantize() {
short x1 = quantize_xq[0] =
quantize_x0 + ((quantize_x0 > 0) & (quantize_x_0 < 0));
quantize_xq[1] = 1 + ((x1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-25
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114461
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114465
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Note that transforming x % 1 % -1 to x % -1 wouldn't strictly be valid (because
of undefined behavior from INT_MIN % -1), though hopefully cases with constant
1 or -1 get optimized to 0 anyway and the unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114469
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I'd expect _Atomic _BitInt(5) to follow the same ABI (regarding upper bits
being defined or not) as plain _BitInt(5), and any simplification needs to deal
with that.
(In principle for atomics with _BitInt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88309
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I scanned the sources of the rs6000 backend and I don't see where `user
align:4` would be happening. I might try to debug this later this week.
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
