https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Re-opening to track backporting progress.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Commit eb72dc663e9070b281be83a80f6f838a3a878822 introduces a wrong code bug on
AArch64.
This causes the test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
I'm happy to test the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Ok, bootstrap and test looks good. Cleaned up a bunch of recent testsuite
failures:
+PASS: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-3 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
+PASS: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4 c_com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|--- |FIXED
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Hi Christophe, see PR95526: this should be fixed by
ab56390384cd5168b548ff07e6f0c9c4d41420fb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95055
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95056
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With the following C code:
void foo(unsigned short a, unsigned short b, unsigned short *ptr)
{
*ptr = a + b;
}
AArch64 GCC at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95650
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
I think clang's optimisation is sound here.
C says that we add two shorts as int and then truncate to short (i.e. reduce
mod 16).
The question is whether the top bits being set (which the ABI allows) can
infl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95676
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
On the following code:
void f(void)
{
__builtin_jn(7,7);
}
GCC since 4.3 hangs in a tight loop inside MPFR code trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, it appears I just wasn't being patient enough. It seems you can make the
constant folding take longer (arbitrarily long?) by adding another digit to the
arguments.
This code:
void f(void) {
__builtin_jn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
I left the updated version running for ~1 hour and it didn't finish compiling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Created attachment 48867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48867&action=edit
Minimal reproducer
I've done some exhaustive testing of which combinations of casts are allowed.
It seems that an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69435
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96796
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Adding -fcommon, I can reproduce this ICE on trunk. The default changed in GCC
10 (as of 6271dd984d7f920d4fb17ad37af6a1f8e6b796dc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96796
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Started with this change:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=8eaff6ef97836100801f7b40dc03f77fbebe03ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
I'll take a look, thanks.
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Confirmed. GCC trunk ICEs on AArch64 when compiling kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c.
Seems to happen when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Ok, the following reduced testcase ICEs at -O2:
int h(void);
struct c d;
struct c {
int e[1];
};
void f(void) {
int g;
for (;; g = h()) {
int *i = &d.e[g];
asm("" : "=Q"(*i));
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
This just looks like a missing pattern which we've started noticing since the
new canonicalisation was introduced.
I imagine reinstating the *add__multp2 pattern and rewriting it to
use shifts instead will fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
I have a patch, just testing it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #15 from Alex Coplan ---
> there are similar ICEs while running the GCC testsuite for aarch64-elf
Confirmed, seeing these ICEs when running the testsuite on
aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
Patch up for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553605.html
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r11-3148-g8d3767c30240c901a493d82d9d20f306b2f0152d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97079
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, yes, the ICE re-appears immediately prior to
r11-3095-g47ddf4c7b1d4471cb9534f27844ab5e4279c2168, so the bug was temporarily
hidden on trunk.
I'll do another bisect, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97079
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
It seems this was introduced with
r11-2817-gcdb2e365fc0dba2ee052827e5ca65234ca82d605:
commit cdb2e365fc0dba2ee052827e5ca65234ca82d605
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri Jul 31 09:53:39 2020
SLP: support en
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
int a, b, c, d;
short e, g;
unsigned short f;
void h() {
for (; d
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
void g(void);
long a;
signed char b(int c, int d) { return c + d; }
void e(void
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
int a, b, c, d;
short e;
void f() {
unsigned g;
for (; d; d++) {
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
long c;
long *d = &c;
int a, e, f;
int main(void) {
for (; f <= 5; f++) {
e = 0;
f
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
int a;
short b, c;
short d(short e, short f) { return e + f; }
void
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
int a, b = 5, c = 3;
char d;
char e[1];
int f[] = {0, 0, 1};
short g
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following C program:
__attribute__ ((noinline))
void f(char *p, char x)
{
if (x != 1)
__builtin_abort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, apologies for the noise - thanks for clarifying.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following C testcase:
#include
_Bool a;
int main() { a = svaddv(svptrue_b8(), svdup_s8(0)); }
we ICE while printing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99381
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk. Needs backporting to GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99381
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
I'll take a look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Right, the problem appears to be to do with the way that overloaded functions
are implemented for the ACLE. Specifically the m_direct_overloads flag in
aarch64_sve::function_builder. If this flag is set, we reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
Ok, I'll have a go, thanks.
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.c
typedef struct {
int a[3];
} s;
s ss[1][5][8];
int g();
void h(s);
int foo(char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99469
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW this is easy to reproduce with either csmith or yarpgen, so should be
straightforward to procure a new testcase if the above goes latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
I have a bisect in progress.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase:
int f(__builtin_va_list *ap) { return __builtin_va_arg(*ap, int); }
on AArch64 at -O2 with -fdump-tree-optimized=-, we get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99523
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks for the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99381
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.cc
int a[21][256];
void b() {
for (long c; c; ++c)
for (long d = 0; d < 16;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SVE: ICE (segfault) in |[10/11 Regression] SVE: ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following testcase on AArch64:
#include
int foo(int x, int y);
void bar(int f, int g, int h, int i, int *j, int k[3][8][7]) {
while (1) {
int p = i ? foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99560
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-15
Known to fail|
||arm
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
> Unless I'm missing something, I don't think "Uxi" is a valid constraint.
> Perhaps the "Ux" constraint was intended instead?
D'oh, this is of course the union of the Ux (MVE-specific) constraint and the
"i"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW, for the related testcase (which we also ICE on):
typedef int __attribute((vector_size(16))) V;
V v;
void f() { v = (V){4095}; }
clang pushes the constant out to the constant pool:
$ clang -target arm i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
We generate invalid assembly for the following testcase:
$ cat test.c
typedef int __attribute((vector_size(16))) V;
V f(void) {
return (V){ (int)f, (int)f, (int)f, (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99647
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Also fails for GCC 10. Not sure if this counts as a regression since MVE only
went in with GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
*** Bug 99554 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] arm: ICE |[10 Regression] arm: ICE
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
If I configure a cross arm GCC with:
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --target=arm-linux-gnueabihf
--with-arch=armv8-a --with-float=hard
and run `make all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99723
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |arm
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
@
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.c
typedef int __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_call)) (*t)();
t f;
void g() { f(); }
$ arm-eabi-gcc -c test.c
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.c
char a[7][25][15][14];
void b() {
for (int c;; ++c)
for (int d = 0; d < 25; ++d)
for (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99727
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99727
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
Summar
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC miscompiles the following testcase:
int main() {
float a = 1.0f;
return (int)a != 1;
}
with -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99748
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
I should have mentioned, I found this because a number of the execution tests
are failing when testing with --with-arch=armv8.1-m.main+mve --with-float=hard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99748
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
GCC 10 also has the issue, so not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99727
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks for the quick fix :)
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Confirmed. Here is a testcase without the includes:
typedef float a __attribute__((__mode__(HF)));
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
The above ICEs with just -O3 -march=armv8.2-a+sve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: unable |[11 Regression] ICE: unable
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following code (which has a strict aliasing violation):
float foo(unsigned v)
{
unsigned tmp = v;
float *f = (float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99758
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a testcase with SVE intrinsics that ICEs in the same way at -Os:
$ cat test.cc
#include
char a;
void c(unsigned &, const unsigned &);
void d(char, bool, short, int, int, char e, int, short f, unsigned
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.c
short a[2][19][6][844];
char b[2][19][40];
long long c[2][722];
void d() {
for (int e; e < 2;
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.cc
long a, b;
bool c[2][14][2][16], f[2][14][2][16];
bool d;
char e[2][4][2][6];
void g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk. Needs backporting to GCC 10 together with bump to
lto-streamer.h:LTO_minor_version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[10 Regression] a
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ cat test.c
extern short a[];
void f() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99820
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Target Milestone|---
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following fails:
$ arm-eabi-gcc -c -xc++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/torture/vshuf-v16qi.c
-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -mtune=cortex-m7 -O3
during RTL pass: reload
In file
||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Confirmed. Started with r11-5185-gd0d8b5d83614d8f0d0e40c0520d4f40ffa01f8d9 so
must be latent. I'll see if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
--- Comment #15 from Alex Coplan ---
So fixed everywhere?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|aarch64: ICE in |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99792
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Ok, I'd guess it just exposes a latent backend / rtl-optimization issue then
1 - 100 of 690 matches
Mail list logo
