https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pheeck at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117912
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> rejects-valid seems inappropriate here, sure, with the error attribute one
> can error on all kinds of things and so most missed optimizations could be
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > But maybe I'm missing something?
>
> I guess the issue is that with
>
> # k_24 = PHI <1(13), k_29(16)>
>
> to easily see this we'd have to compute the range of
> (unsigned int) M_9(D) - 1 and the range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102786
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Simon Martin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae8d9d2b40aa7fd6a455beda38ff1b3c21728c31
commit r12-10847-gae8d9d2b40aa7fd6a455beda38ff1b3c21728c31
Author: Simon Martin
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117615
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Simon Martin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae8d9d2b40aa7fd6a455beda38ff1b3c21728c31
commit r12-10847-gae8d9d2b40aa7fd6a455beda38ff1b3c21728c31
Author: Simon Martin
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117912
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > rejects-valid seems inappropriate here, sure, with the error attribute one
> > can error on all kinds of thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca4d6285974817080d3488b293c4970a8231372b
commit r15-5932-gca4d6285974817080d3488b293c4970a8231372b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93158
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > > But maybe I'm missing something?
> >
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116771
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117860
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3cb0c3302a7c16e661a08c15c897c8f7bbb5d23
commit r15-5950-gb3cb0c3302a7c16e661a08c15c897c8f7bbb5d23
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117860
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117924
Bug ID: 117924
Summary: unused std::vector are not optimized out fully
at gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117924
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
looking at dse3 dump we get:
[local count: 1073741824]:
MEM[(struct _Bvector_impl_data *)&data] ={v} {CLOBBER(bob)};
MEM[(struct __as_base &)&data] ={v} {CLOBBER(bob)};
_13 = MEM[(const struct vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117819
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117516
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 59797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59797&action=edit
gcc15-pr117516-wip.patch
So far just formatting cleanups and turning tree parameters/members into bool
if they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117921
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0368c42507328774cadbea589509b95aaf3cb826
commit r15-5942-g0368c42507328774cadbea589509b95aaf3cb826
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117801
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc0dea98c96e02c6b24060170bc88da8d4931bc2
commit r15-5943-gdc0dea98c96e02c6b24060170bc88da8d4931bc2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112574
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117923
Bug ID: 117923
Summary: ICE in SET_TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS on Aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
Denis Chertykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denisc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
--- Comment #3 from Denis Chertykov ---
Created attachment 59796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59796&action=edit
Modified test case "bf.c"
I worked with a modified test case (bf.c):
struct
{
unsigned long long u33 : 33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Bug ID: 117922
Summary: [15 Regression] 1000% compilation time slow down on
the testcase from pr26854
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117516
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, the warning as implemented doesn't really diagnose all the bugs, just
the first one, and e.g. on
struct A { int a; char b[]; int c; };
struct B { struct A d; struct A e[]; struct A f; };
struct C {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #6 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 59794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59794&action=edit
Patch to fix the issue
I cannot use your reproducer, I get the following error:
main.c: In function ‘create_code’:
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #154 from Filip Kastl ---
> I suggest you file a new bugreport for the regression.
Ok, it is now pr117922
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117615
--- Comment #12 from Alec ---
Thank you guys for the speedy pickup, triage, and turnaround! Keep up the good
work!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
--- Comment #4 from Denis Chertykov ---
The bug appears in LRA after rematerialization pass while creating live ranges.
File lra.cc:
*
/* Now we know what pseudos should be spill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117921
Bug ID: 117921
Summary: containers do not use ADL swap for Compare, Pred or
Hash types
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|avr, mips*-*-* |mips*-*-*
--- Comment #9 from Georg-J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I'm talking about the number of iterations of the second loop (after loop
splitting), the niter expression is (unsigned int) M_9(D) - (unsigned int)
k_24.
We know k_29 == M_9(D) when exiting the first loop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117210
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Great, thanks for checking it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I'm talking about the number of iterations of the second loop (after loop
> splitting), the niter expression is (unsigned int) M_9(D) - (unsigned int)
> k_24.
ession algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20241205 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117915
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Goomenuk ---
Another issue with that warning is the lack of ineffective suppression with
pragma option.
In order to suppress this warning that occurs in a derived class, one need to
put this pragma option into base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
Demin Han changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deminhan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102786
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Simon Martin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:322faea202947561ee8c03edf5ab0ccf649587e1
commit r13-9230-g322faea202947561ee8c03edf5ab0ccf649587e1
Author: Simon Martin
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117615
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Simon Martin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:322faea202947561ee8c03edf5ab0ccf649587e1
commit r13-9230-g322faea202947561ee8c03edf5ab0ccf649587e1
Author: Simon Martin
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107957
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b78c0dcb1b6b523880ee193698defca3ebd0b3f7
commit r15-5937-gb78c0dcb1b6b523880ee193698defca3ebd0b3f7
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #44 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0eb7f0a860add7b1c79ae4248e1960120bc77d60
commit r14-11062-g0eb7f0a860add7b1c79ae4248e1960120bc77d60
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #43 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7b5527d1b48b33d8ab633c1e9dcb9883667492a
commit r15-5936-gf7b5527d1b48b33d8ab633c1e9dcb9883667492a
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107957
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
--- Comment #7 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> (In reply to CTC from comment #5)
> > I tried to reduce it with Creduce and got "HUP caught" after 7 hours.
>
> Sorry to ask the obvious, but are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 117615, which changed state.
Bug 117615 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] constexpr failure static_cast of
Derived virtual Pointer to Member function since r6-4014-gdcdbc004d531b4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117615, which changed state.
Bug 117615 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] constexpr failure static_cast of
Derived virtual Pointer to Member function since r6-4014-gdcdbc004d531b4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
> On 5 Dec 2024, at 11:51, 19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
>
> --- Comment #7 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
> (In reply to Sam James
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0eed81612ad6eac2bec60286348a103d4dc02a5a
commit r15-5940-g0eed81612ad6eac2bec60286348a103d4dc02a5a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113994
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0eed81612ad6eac2bec60286348a103d4dc02a5a
commit r15-5940-g0eed81612ad6eac2bec60286348a103d4dc02a5a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fca04028d7075a6eaae350774a3916f14d4004ae
commit r15-5939-gfca04028d7075a6eaae350774a3916f14d4004ae
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14 Regression] Miscompiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778
--- Comment #5 from Denis Chertykov ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/670949.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
--- Comment #14 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
This is invalid code, because you haven't told GCC your inline assembly
makes use of v8 or v24. You need to specify inputs and outputs correctly
or otherwise the compiler will consider these registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117875
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > I'm talking about the number of iterations of the second loop (after loop
> > splitting), the niter expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117830
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Müllner ---
Thank you for reporting this!
I can reproduce this issue on x86_64 (I did not test on other architectures).
I have also confirmed that the suspected change (1c4d39ada33d) causes this
by validating that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112268
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
Bug ID: 117925
Summary: ice unexpected expression '(FnPtr)(fnPtr)' of kind
cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117926
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Alexander's testcase started with r15-882-g1d6199e5f8c1c0 (ran that just out of
curiosity while other machine was reducing) and indeed the FF one started with
r14-2786-gade30fad6669e5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106329
Jennifer Schmitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117926
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks, here's a variant of the small testcase that fails on gcc-14 too, just
needed to make the integer field the first in the struct:
struct s {
int i[2];
float f[2];
double d;
};
void f(s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117928
Bug ID: 117928
Summary: z14 builtin for VLBR instruction missing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8772f37e45e9401c9a361548e00c9691424e75e0
commit r15-5956-g8772f37e45e9401c9a361548e00c9691424e75e0
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > > For me targetting aarch64, the peak memory is over 26G and it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > For me targetting aarch64, the peak memory is over 26G and it is taking over
> > an hour.
-O2 Finally finished f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice unexpected expression |[14/15 Regression] ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117248
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #12)
>
> I see. Thank you. I've reproduced it with using -mlra.
This case is really non-trivial and involves inheritance. Also the live
analysis in LRA af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
I held off pushing because I had the scent of the problem. The "fix" of comment
#3 was a dead giveaway. It turns out to be nothing to do with my fix for 102689
but is a latent bug exposed by the testcase. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117923
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|antoyo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85719
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
IMO the documentation on "io", "io_low" and "address" has improved. Maybe it
is clearer now? There's also an example what code will be generated for
attribute "address".
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
The avr backend has some combiner patterns to mitigate the bloated code,
however since recently, some pass is popping up subregs like in:
(insn 10 9 15 2 (set (reg:HI 48 [ _5 ])
(plus:HI (reg/v:H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117926
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Sam may be able to follow up with a testcase extracted from original Firefox
> package for gcc-14.
```
float slant_xy, mults_changed_upem;
struct {
int x_sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117248
--- Comment #14 from John David Anglin ---
That would be awesome!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85719
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
--- Comment #15 from Demin Han ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #14)
> This is invalid code, because you haven't told GCC your inline assembly
> makes use of v8 or v24. You need to specify inputs and outputs correctly
> or otherw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> For me targetting aarch64, the peak memory is over 26G and it is taking over
> an hour.
65.86% cc1 [.] _Z15bitmap_ior_intoP11bitmap_hea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
One issue in fold-mem-offsets is that it seems to do per-BB operation but
relies on global DF and looks at uses/defs also not within a BB? If it's
supposed
to be "global" then a better order than FOR_ALL_B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106329
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jennifer Schmitz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5289540ed58e42ae66255e31f22afe4ca0a6e15e
commit r15-5957-g5289540ed58e42ae66255e31f22afe4ca0a6e15e
Author: Jennifer Schmitz
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
For me targetting aarch64, the peak memory is over 26G and it is taking over an
hour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115438
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
For zen3/zen4 there might be a 2.5% regression left, so I'll leave this PR open
for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117912
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117912
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
So like the following, though maybe a maybe_eq (index, ub + 1) is enough given
any other OOB would be UB?
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.cc
index 8d74731a891..57ae40af77b 100644
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107957
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf6f77edd625cfe2f2f164e90437df318b96527f
commit r15-5938-gbf6f77edd625cfe2f2f164e90437df318b96527f
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
--- Comment #5 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
I tried to reduce it with Creduce and got "HUP caught" after 7 hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116625
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #45 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45bc6c452ef182dd08c0f0836fef88ad5b67b3aa
commit r13-9231-g45bc6c452ef182dd08c0f0836fef88ad5b67b3aa
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117911
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #46 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:499d3dc84e40849f607154bd76ed07d37d744cc1
commit r12-10848-g499d3dc84e40849f607154bd76ed07d37d744cc1
Author: Georg-Johan
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
