https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-12-11
CC||mark.eggleston at codethink
dot co
||m, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.2.0
at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've prepared a debugging patch that can be probably added in next stage1:
https://github.com/marxin/gcc/tree/global-options-checking
Using the patch I see a violation of the following options:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Example 1:
$ cat tc.c
void linker_error();
__attribute__ ((optimize("-O0")))
int a ()
{
}
static int remove_me ()
{
linker_error ();
}
void
main()
{
}
$ ./xgcc -B. -Os tc.c -c -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
param_min_crossjump_insns is changed here when we switch optimization level:
if (opts->x_optimize_size)
/* We want to crossjump as much as possible. */
SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (opts, opts_set, param_mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
And the last piece is this one:
if (opts->x_optimize == 0)
{
/* Inlining does not work if not optimizing,
so force it not to be done. */
opts->x_warn_inline = 0;
opts->x_flag
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92917
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I can still reproduce it with r279828.
$ /dev/shm/gcc-objdir-bisect/gcc/xg++ -B/dev/shm/gcc-objdir-bisect/gcc
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f
-misel -O2 -fstac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92981
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2020-01-02
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Let me take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #11)
> Hi, (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > Fixed on trunk.
> I am trying to back port the fix for 89832 into our company's gcc8.2.1
> release.
> by looking a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #5)
> Thanks. It's not specific to powerpc, then.
Well, it is probably, I'm testing powerpc-e300c3 cross compiler.
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: ppc64le-linux-gnu
I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: aarch64-linux-gnu
The following test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
The following ICEs:
$ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
||9.2.0
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed||2020-01-03
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
||2020-01-03
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.2.0
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever
||2020-01-03
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Is the code snippet invalid, right?
||2020-01-03
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed with current trunk and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAIT
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Since the revision I see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
ce r279628
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 63426
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93162
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: fxue at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One another ICE for existing test-suite:
$ gfortran
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dependency_58.f90 -O3
-fwrapv -floop-nest-optimize
during GIMPLE pass: graphite
/home/marxin/Programm
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
One another ICE:
$ gcc /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93167
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 6 09:13:15 2020
New Revision: 279895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark param_max_combine_insns with Optimization keyword.
PR tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83411
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > So finding
> > a point like your 'loop' and using flatten attribute can guarantee the
> > call-chain is fully optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> So the histogram of destinations is indeed greatly dominated by one
> estination but there are very many others (not all are listed since I
> started dropping them).
>
> One way to make reproducible merg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, that makes sense. We should do it both during merging and during
> instrumentation. If we choose a drop level equal to 10^2 or 10^3 we should
> not probably introduce a divergence.
Instrumentation is r
||2020-01-06
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.2.0
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67202
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
@Thomas: Setting host to 67202 is probably a typo.
||2020-01-07
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.2.0
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
||2020-01-07
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
With the mentioned revision I see a dup of PR93173:
$ g++ pr93179.cc -c -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:10:37 2020
New Revision: 279945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark param_min_crossjump_insns with Optimization keyword.
2020-01-07 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:15:38 2020
New Revision: 279947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make warn_inline Optimization option.
2020-01-07 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83411
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:18:46 2020
New Revision: 279948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Document cloning for the target_clone attribute.
2020-01-07 Martin Liska
: web
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: LpSolit at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Once we'll switch to git, it would be handy to refer in bugzilla to git commits
with their corresponding hashes. Similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> When will the move to git take place?
Roughly in 2 weeks.
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed on trunk.
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
That is fixed on trunk right now after r279986.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic execution?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47613&action=edit
Github git reference
I like what Github does. You can paste a git hash in a text, it's later
shortened and one c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: fxue at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I see ICE for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
@Martin, Jakub: What's the status of the PR? Is there a consensus that it'a a
wrong-code issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 93167 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 93167, which changed state.
Bug 93167 Summary: [graphite] One another ICE with isl-0.22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93167
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93167
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92429
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
@avieira: Any progress on this one please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > Can you also add -Wl,-v ; this will cause collect2 to print it runs?
>
> It reports error :"gcc: error: unrecogniz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> @Maxim: Can you please retest it?
PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic
> > execution?
>
> Please help check the strace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47621
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47621&action=edit
Clean up test-case
So the now the diff of the source file is minimal:
$ diff -u 1.ii 2.ii
--- 1.ii2020-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89762
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza: Are you planning to backport it to GCC 8 or may I close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > > Yep, I can still reproduce it with the current master in a cross c
||2020-01-10
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that.
||2020-01-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Lemme take a look.
||2020-01-10
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, started with r279392
: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: aarch64-linux-gnu
I see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93217
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
The issue can't be reproduced on x86_64-linux because
if constexpr (std::atomic_ref::is_always_lock_free)
if false. There's a changed inline decision, I'm isolating which Param change
caused that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93217
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93217
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jan 10 12:27:36 2020
New Revision: 280103
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280103&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong parenthesis in inliner.
2020-01-10 Martin Liska
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93217
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com, segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: powerpc64le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93219
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93224
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
#include
int main()
{
long double value;
if constexpr (std::atomic_ref::is_always_lock_free)
{
bool ok;
const auto mo = std::memory_order_relaxed;
std::atomic_ref a(valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93224
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case:
$ #include
int main()
{
long double value;
if constexpr (std::atomic_ref::is_always_lock_free)
{
bool ok;
const auto mo = std::memory_order_relaxed;
std::atomic_ref a(v
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Starting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
> Well - there's the leh_state passed to both callers of the function
> so I expected a patch to amend that rather than adding an on-the-side
> caching hash-map. So basically whenever we push a non-CLEANUP
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So FRE optimizes
>
> wo.value = &buf;
> _48 = __MEM ((struct Optional * *)&wo);
> _20 = __MEM ((bool *)_48);
> if (_20 != _Literal (bool) 0)
> goto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47645
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47645&action=edit
Richi's modified test-case
@Richi: Do you want to bisect this version?
If so, it started to fail also with g:dc3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 47645 [details]
> > Richi's modified test-case
> >
> > @Richi: Do you want to bisect this ver
||2020-01-13
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
It's probably dup of PR93238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Btw, on trunk I see it optimized, maybe some recent CTOR "fixing" fixed it
> again? Can you double-check?
>
> If it's fixed again I suggest to add the testcase (ck should be elided
> in the assembly?)
I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Martin, did you try to get some testsuite scale version of the last testcase?
Sorry, but no. So please apply the patch and we can close it.
1701 - 1800 of 11974 matches
Mail list logo
