https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115137
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> ```
> char *c;
> int b, d, e;
>
> static void f(char *g, char *h) {
> char a[1024] = {};
> c = a;
> for (; g < h; g++)
> if (b)
> ++d;
> }
>
> int main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115137
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
The original is:
```
append_uri_pathel (fname_len_check,
fname_len_check + strlen (fname_len_check), true, &temp_fnres);
[...]
/* Walk the PATHEL string and check how many characters we'll need
to quo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 58231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58231&action=edit
Preliminary fix for this PR
I went back to the beginning on this problem, having realised that it is far
too ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115138
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Dup of PR115137?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> Created attachment 58231 [details]
> Preliminary fix for this PR
>
> I went back to the beginning on this problem, having realised that it is far
> too early to res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Bug ID: 115146
Summary: [15 Regression] Incorrect 8-byte vectorization:
psllw/psraw confusion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Specifically if I change original example to contain 16 bytes instead of 8:
--- bug.c.orig 2024-05-18 11:07:47.426351557 +0100
+++ bug.c 2024-05-18 11:08:02.135601287 +0100
@@ -15,2 +15,2 @@
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
IIUC, this is just about the timing of a branch, which in the general != 0 is
currently taken (takes 2 ticks), but it's better to only take it in the
non-common (= 0) case? So that the common case falls t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115138
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-darwin |x86_64-darwin, x86_64-linux
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
as of r15-644, Ada bootstrap succeeded on i686-darwin9 and 17.
I do not known whether that means the issue is actually fixed by recent Ada
commits, or that it's now just become latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||admin at levyhsu dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3)
> Bisected down to r15-498-gc6cc6d4741a880
Sorry, should be r15-499-ga71f90c5a7ae29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115138
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
additional notes:
1. jamming -std=c++11 into stage2 and 3 cxxflags did not make any difference (I
was wondering if some c++17 copy elision thing might have changed the number of
temporaries).
2. still there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|14.0|15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114831
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115147
Bug ID: 115147
Summary: exp2 with integer arguments could be translated into
ldexp
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115147
--- Comment #1 from Jan Schultke ---
I did some quick low-quality benchmarks. It doesn't seem to make any kind of
difference for libc++ and clang:
https://quick-bench.com/q/aq1mZ1sKTWHzdmZf5D7BO2yJ1Yo (or for libstdc++ and
clang)
For GCC and li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> the bug is in minmax part of phiopt and I think it was caused by my
> r14-4279-g68fa82e2d8f868 .
>
It was not caused by that. Rather it was caused by r14-3827-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.0
Summary|[14/15 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:988838da722dea09bd81ee9d49800a6f24980372
commit r15-645-g988838da722dea09bd81ee9d49800a6f24980372
Author: Wolfgang Hospital
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b88dade7ff8a07fd0843ac1281e095cfd94453e
commit r14-10217-g3b88dade7ff8a07fd0843ac1281e095cfd94453e
Author: Wolfgang Ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] tree |[11/12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is a latent bug that dates back to r0-66475-g8eaa0f34a3387d (GCC
4.1.0)
Note also r13-1950-g9bb19e143cfe88 introduced the similar bug too.
Basically there needs a check for no phi nodes in the mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58232&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115137
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58233&action=edit
reduced.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
Bug ID: 115148
Summary: [SH] [12/13/14 Regression]: libcanberra fails with
'unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 58234
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58234&action=edit
Preprocessed source from building read-vorbis.c with gcc-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is the simplified gimple testcase so it does not depend on optimizations
before hand:
```
unsigned __GIMPLE (ssa,startwith("phiopt"))
foo (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
unsigned j;
unsigned _23;
unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|13.2.0 |
Severity|blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Here is one which failed since GCC 10 (when __MIN support was added for
> gimple FE):
> ```
> signed __GIMPLE (ssa,startwith("phiopt"))
> foo (signed a, unsigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
It will succeed, if any of the following optimizations are removed:
-fcrossjumping
-finline-functions
-finline-small-functions
-freorder-blocks-algorithm=stc
-ftree-pre
-ftree-tail-merge
-ftree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just one high level note. Nobody is ever going to do something like
"-ftree-ter" without having one of the optimization levels on. It's an option
combination that just doesn't make sense.
But we still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is one that is more correct to show the failure:
```
unsigned __GIMPLE (ssa,startwith("phiopt"))
foo (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
unsigned j;
unsigned _23;
unsigned _12;
__BB(2):
if (a_6(D) > 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107563
--- Comment #12 from Levy Hsu ---
switch (d->vmode)
{
case E_V8QImode:
if (!TARGET_MMX_WITH_SSE)
return false;
mode = V4HImode;
gen_shr = gen_ashrv4hi3(should be gen_lshrv4hi3);
gen_shl = gen_ashlv4hi3;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #5 from Levy Hsu ---
switch (d->vmode)
{
case E_V8QImode:
if (!TARGET_MMX_WITH_SSE)
return false;
mode = V4HImode;
gen_shr = gen_ashrv4hi3(should be gen_lshrv4hi3);
gen_shl = gen_ashlv4hi3;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115149
Bug ID: 115149
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 with "-fno-inline
-fno-tree-vrp -fno-ipa-sra -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-ch"
on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114927
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114930
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44744
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44744
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> Another variant from lsdalton – or rather the
BTW: I have not verified that the cause is the same (temporary variable), but
it seems to be likely.
When replacing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115150
Bug ID: 115150
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] SHAPE of zero-sized array
yields a negative value
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #7 from Levy Hsu ---
Created attachment 58236
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58236&action=edit
[PR]115146
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115150
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
I have not tested on solaris - hopefully that is OK too.
However, I will comment that it maybe built but there are cats regressions (1)
on x86_64, (2) on i686-darwin17 (many) on i686-darwin9. No idea what ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115151
Bug ID: 115151
Summary: procedure(acos) [,pointer] :: p - is wrongly rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Levy Hsu from comment #5)
> case E_V16QImode:
> mode = V8HImode;
> gen_shr = gen_vlshrv8hi3;
> gen_shl = gen_vashlv8hi3;
Hm, why vector-by-vector shift here? Should there be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> However, I will comment that it maybe built but there are cats regressions
> (1) on x86_64, (2) on i686-darwin17 (many) on i686-darwin9. No idea what
> caused those at the moment - and my hardware is very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|ICE on valid co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115147
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115140
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/652093.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114831
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
Bug ID: 115152
Summary: wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-fre
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-loop-im" on
x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also I tested even the simplified testcase:
```
volatile int t = 1;
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
volatile int print_hash_value = 0;
if (t == 2) print_hash_value = 1;
__builtin_ctz(print_h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||x86_64-linux-gnu
Summary|Inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|++this is accepted in |++const_dependent_ptr is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114896
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-18
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115142
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O3 with |[13/14/15 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The bug is in strlen1:
```
maybe_invalidate called for MEM[(char *)&e] = vect_pretmp_76.13_77;
maybe_invalidate returns 1
maybe_invalidate called for MEM[(char *)&e] = vect_pretmp_89.18_79;
maybe_invalidate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115152
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is it looks like a bad interaction between `Vector(1) char` stores and
reads from char. BUT I don't understand how it gets that badly wrong.
Hello Mr./Mrs,
please confirm if the dates listed below are available.
Dates listed below.
Arrival date: June 30th, 2024
Departure date: July 28th, 2024
Number of guests: 2 adults
Send me the price for the booking period by e-mail.
Warm regards,
Mr. and Mrs. Martinez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Levy Hsu from comment #7)
> Created attachment 58236 [details]
> [PR]115146
The change fixed `highway-1.0.7` testsuite failure for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
Bug ID: 115153
Summary: Error: bad immediate value for 8-bit offset - armv7ve
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is your exact configure command line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
--- Comment #3 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What is your exact configure command line?
Executing (host):
/var/media/DATA/home-rudi/LibreELEC.kernel11/build.LibreELEC-RPi2.arm-12.0-devel/build/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
--- Comment #4 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
We have also see the same failure building kodi (vpeter4 did the investigation)
The difference between gcc13 and 14 is
gcc-13, ok
add r0, r0, #384
ldrdr2, r3, [r0]
gcc-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
--- Comment #5 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
(In reply to rudi from comment #4)
> We have also see the same failure building kodi (vpeter4 did the
> investigation)
> The difference between gcc13 and 14 is
>
> gcc-13, ok
> add r0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error: bad immediate value |[14/15 Regression] Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115153
--- Comment #7 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I suspect r14-4365-g0731889c026bfe is the cause.
>
> ```
> (define_insn "arm_atomic_loaddi2_ldrd"
>[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127
--- Comment #3 from Bi6c ---
Created attachment 58237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58237&action=edit
preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #3 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #2)
> PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/652093.html
I'm confused about the tests added here:
> enum H { x = 1 };
> enum H { x = 2UL + UINT_MAX };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #4 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #3)
> enum E { a = 1L, b = _Generic(a, enum E: 2) }; /* { dg-warning "outside the
> range" } */
Seems like I copied this wrong, the comment should be a part of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I also ran a round compiled with -fno-ivopts -fno-delayed-branch: the latter
because it's somewhat non-linear in finding delay-slot-filling opportunities
(lack of "luck" causing improvements to negate)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58238&action=edit
tree-dump file@517
arith-rand.c @r15-517
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58239&action=edit
tree-dump file @518
arith-rand.c @r15-518
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58240&action=edit
tree-dump file@517 w. ivopts
As above @517, but no -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58241&action=edit
tree-dump file@518 w. ivopts
As above @518 without -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Bug ID: 115154
Summary: [13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels
-O2, -O3, -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
