[Bug target/103594] [12 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1335 since r12-5771

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103594 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > Why can't I reproduce it? > > $ ./xgcc -B./ -S -O > /export/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/ > pr37433.c > $ -fPIE/-fPIC is needed.

[Bug target/103594] [12 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1335 since r12-5771

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103594 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/103735] New: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 Bug ID: 103735 Summary: [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug middle-end/103735] [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/103735] [12 Regression] Extra glibc "make check" failures by r12-4764

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103735 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] Extra glibc |[12 Regression] Extra glibc

[Bug middle-end/102080] [12 Regression] avx512vl related ICE, on firefox-92 gcc ICEs: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:7946 by r12-2679

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102080 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/103762] New: [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 Bug ID: 103762 Summary: [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- elf/dl-tunables.c is miscompiled by -fpie.

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Good: There are 16 section headers, starting at offset 0x21d8: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddress OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL0

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 52028 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52028&action=edit A testcase There are dl-tunables.i good.s bad.s. Compiler options are -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -g -Wall -Wwr

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Good __tunables_init code: .L35: movq$-88, %rax leaqtunable_list(%rip), %rbx movq%r8, %r12 subq%rbx, %rax movq%rax, %r15 Bad __tunables_init code:

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- LRA turns

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug middle-end/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com, |

[Bug rtl-optimization/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9) > glibc cannot easily work around such unexpected relocations for static or > hidden variables. Static PIE currently requires PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN, and > with the GCC

[Bug target/103762] [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by r12-897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug tree-optimization/103194] [12 Regression] ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and with __sync_fetch_and_and since r12-5102-gfb161782545224f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/42444] "-march=i386 -march=native -mfpmath=sse" problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42444 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- *** Bug 42444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/102087] [12 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in determine_exit_conditions, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:1049 since r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/102072] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c in r12-3136 fails on armeb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102072 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/102087] [12 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in determine_exit_conditions, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:1049 since r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from

[Bug target/102108] New: [meta] ABI change due to SSE emulation of MMX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102108 Bug ID: 102108 Summary: [meta] ABI change due to SSE emulation of MMX Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug Severity: normal Priori

[Bug target/102105] [10/11/12 Regression] x86_64: ABI break with vector in union and -mno-mmx -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102105 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/102110] New: microblaze-linux doesn't use elfos.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102110 Bug ID: 102110 Summary: microblaze-linux doesn't use elfos.h Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/102105] x86_64: ABI break with vector in union and -mno-mmx -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102105 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |9.4.1 Summary|[10/11/12 Regression

[Bug target/102143] ABI incompatibility with clang when passing 32bit vectors on 32bit i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/102143] ABI incompatibility with clang when passing 32bit vectors on 32bit i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- I think psABIs should specify how to pass and return 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit vectors. We can treat them as struct vectorN { intN };

[Bug go/102102] [12 Regression] trunk 20210827 ftbfs libgo on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102102 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/102197] New: ABI to pass and return 32-bit FP vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102197 Bug ID: 102197 Summary: ABI to pass and return 32-bit FP vectors Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/89984] Extra register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/85819] conversion from __v[48]su to __v[48]sf should use FMA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85819 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/50891] move2add_note_store fails to properly track register content

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/56833] [4.9 Regression] Valid register is over written by postreload pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56833 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 from

[Bug target/102294] memset expansion is sometimes slow for small sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #12 fr

[Bug target/102327] gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c:14678: Suspicious coding ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102327 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Target Milestone

[Bug target/102491] [12 Regression] Assembler messages: Error: no such instruction: `vmovw %xmm0,%eax'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102491 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/102473] [12 Regression] 521.wrf_r 5% slower at -Ofast and generic x86_64 tuning after r12-3426-g8f323c712ea76c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes before and after.

[Bug target/102473] [12 Regression] 521.wrf_r 5% slower at -Ofast and generic x86_64 tuning after r12-3426-g8f323c712ea76c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12) > > Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes > > before and after. > > Assembly codes is the s

[Bug libgomp/102571] New: FAIL: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/atomic-21.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571 Bug ID: 102571 Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/atomic-21.c execution test Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/102562] [12 Regression][modules] Failing g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header tests since r12-4067-gc46ecb0112e91c8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102562 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- spawn -ignore SIGHUP /export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-32bit-gitlab-native/build-i686-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++8/../../xg++ -B/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-32bit-gitlab-native/build-i686-linu

[Bug target/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- This works: [hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ cat y.c #include _Atomic int v; unsigned int foo () { return atomic_fetch_or_explicit (&v, 1, memory_order_relaxed) & 1; } [hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ make y.s /export/bu

[Bug tree-optimization/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |tree-optimization --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu

[Bug tree-optimization/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Can we convert _1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (&v, 1, 0); _2 = (int) _1; _5 = _2 & 1; to _1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (&v, 1, 0); _2 = _1 & 1; _5 = (int) _2;

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 51536 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51536&action=edit A patch Please try this.

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51536|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51543|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51549|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51551|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51556|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14) > > Created attachment 51556 [details] > > The v5 patch > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > 1. Check SSA_NAME before SSA_NAME_OCC

[Bug target/102625] New: [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625 Bug ID: 102625 Summary: [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/49244] __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24) > I wanted to look at #c20, but at least my i9-7960X for e.g. lock; btsl $65, > var > acts the same as lock; btsl $1, var rather than lock; btsl $1, var+8, > so maybe #

[Bug target/102625] [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/102625] [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- 1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o. 2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a. 3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a 4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support

[Bug tree-optimization/102622] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512 and icelake-server by r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable val

[Bug tree-optimization/102622] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512 and icelake-server by r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4) > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at > play? -fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug. > If so, you could try to narrow it down to the

[Bug tree-optimization/102622] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512 and icelake-server by r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- 1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes. 2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails. 3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails. 4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.

[Bug tree-optimization/102622] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512 and icelake-server by r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10) > Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread. :1-1 passes.

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51558|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #22) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21) > > Created attachment 51559 [details] > > The new v3 patch > > > > The new v3 patch to check invalid mask. > > v3? We wer

[Bug sanitizer/102632] New: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632 Bug ID: 102632 Summary: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am Product: gcc Version: 9.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/101804] float_vector_all_ones_operand should be used more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/101761] Random hang with 29_atomics/atomic_ref/wait_notify.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/98442] [X86] suboptimal for memset with CLEAR_BY_PIECES

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/90773] Improve piecewise operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #20 from

[Bug target/102230] ICE in classify_argument, at config/i386/i386.c:2474

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #24) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23) > > I renamed the commit title. The new v3 is the v6 + fixes. > > Got it. Still no issues. Can you get some performance i

[Bug sanitizer/102632] Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/102677] New: Extra testsuite failures with glibc 2.34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102677 Bug ID: 102677 Summary: Extra testsuite failures with glibc 2.34 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsui

[Bug libstdc++/49745] error: ‘int truncate’ redeclared as different kind of symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51559|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/102669] [12 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/unroll1.adb scan-rtl-dump-times loop2_unroll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102669 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #2) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > That file is FreeBSD specific. Can you use a local patch to force > > /usr/include/md5.h, like > > > > #include_next > >

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Another possibility is to add a configure test to locate the system and include it instead of .

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Depends on|

[Bug tree-optimization/102796] [12 Regresson] ICE in useless_type_conversion_p at gcc/gimple-expr.c:87 since r12-4443-g93ac832f1846e4867aa6537f76f510fab8e3e87d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta -mavx512f by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta -mavx512f by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Source has __attribute__((__noipa__)) void BUF_reverse (unsigned char *out, const unsigned char *in, size_t size) { size_t i; if (in) { out += size - 1; for (i = 0; i < size; i++) *out

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta -mavx512f by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- 192t.thread3 has if (in_16(D) != 0B) goto ; [70.00%] else goto ; [30.00%] 193t.dom3 removed "if (in_16(D) != 0B)".

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta -mavx512f by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Visiting conditional with predicate: if (in_16(D) != 0B) With known ranges in_16(D): const unsigned char * [1B, +INF] 1B for lower bound is wrong.

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- A pointer is known to non-null only if we know where the pointer is pointing to. Since the null field is initialized to 0, we need to check both null and anything. This works on the test case: diff --git a/gcc/

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Vectorizer has if (DR_PTR_INFO (dr) && TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME && !SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base)) vect_duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr_base, dr_info); This fixes the crash. diff --

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 51618 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51618&action=edit A patch

[Bug tree-optimization/102798] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -fno-tree-pta by r9-2475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51618|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/102796] [12 Regresson] ICE in useless_type_conversion_p at gcc/gimple-expr.c:87 since r12-4443-g93ac832f1846e4867aa6537f76f510fab8e3e87d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #6) > Created attachment 51624 [details] > Allow EDGE_EH edges to be processed > > range_on_edge needs to continue processing EDGE_EH.. > See if this fixes all the proble

[Bug target/102836] gcc.target/i386/pieces-memset-1.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102836 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0) > It turns out that this happens because 32-bit Solaris/x86 only guarantees > 4-byte stack alignment following the i386 psABI, so defaults to > -mstackrealign. > > Adding

[Bug rtl-optimization/102840] New: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840 Bug ID: 102840 Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug rtl-optimization/102840] [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #1) > I believe this test case is poorly written, and not correctly testing the > original issue in PR target/22076 which concerned suboptimal moving of > arguments via memory

[Bug rtl-optimization/102840] [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from

[Bug middle-end/102764] [12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug libffi/102874] [12 regression] src/x86/win64.S doesn't assemble with Solaris as

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-10-21 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13) > @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the > functionality? Like this? diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index c66a2

[Bug libffi/102874] [12 regression] src/x86/win64.S doesn't assemble with Solaris as

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3) > > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- > > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc? > > It does when gcc is configured with

[Bug libffi/102896] src/moxie/ffi.c:239:arrayIndexOutOfBounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >