https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95362
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm aarch64 |arm, aarch64, x86_64
--- Comment #2 from
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since the revision gcov can't find corresponding .gcd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-27
Status|UNCONFIRMED
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I still see:
$ ./xgcc -B. /home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr86179.c -O3
-c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
The same for:
$ ./xgcc -B. ../../gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-13.c -O3
during GIMPLE pass: vect
../../gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-13.c:21:1: internal compiler
error: in vect_get_const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Thank you for the report. It's a known limitation Honza noticed me about.
> > Is the size problematic from size perspectiv
||2020-05-27
CC||markeggleston at gcc dot
gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|TYPE IS(character(*)) no|[10/11 Regression] TYPE
|longer matches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95370
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
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: kito at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host
|RESOLVED
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed with r11-658-g764ef40ba185ef92.
||needs-reduction
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from Mar
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r9-3803
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95376
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95380
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=95380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95356
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Reopening as the following is ICEing:
$ gcc /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr95356.c -c
-O3 -mavx512dq
during GIMPLE pass: slp
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)>
> > Can you please share some statistics how big are the files and how many
> > runs do you merge?
>
> There were on the
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Note that clang has the same limitation:
clang++ pr95384.C -fsanitize=undefined && ./a.out
pr9538
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|inte
||11.0
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
|emit_move_insn, at |emit_move_insn, at
|expr.c:3814 |expr.c:3814
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška -
|with -O3 for loops |produces incorrect code
||with -O3 for loops since
||r8-6511-g3ae129323d150621
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95400
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95391 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95355
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Can the bug be marked as resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91276
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
>
> around 14000 processes, they are not the same executable, so not all the run
>
Both I guess they share the majority of compiled object files, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > 1) You should not generate profile data for each process to a different
> > folder, but rather merge it.
>
> not sure ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> Do you use it? Or do you use any of -fprofile-dir options?
Ah, ok, you use it. Based on the report:
-fprofile-dir=gcc_prof_dir/%p"
So my recommendation would be not to use it and let GCOV run-time librar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
> For our application, all processes generating profiling feedback data to a
> single directory seems is not a choice.
Why is it problem? You need to provide reasoning for that.
> We chose -fprofile-dir=%p
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95436
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95430
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 63426
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-01
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, is it a valid or invalid source?
,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE for |[8/9/10 regression] ICE for
|lambda capturing this and |lambda capturing this and
|calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95400
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Can we backport the change to active branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
All right, there are results for a micro-benchmark that we have in contrib
folder:
ZNVER1 (AMD Ryzen 7 2700X):
64-bit:
contrib/bench-stringop 64 32000 gcc -march=znver1
memcpy
block size libcall rep1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
And this is for znver2:
AMD EPYC 7502P 32-Core Processor
64-bit:
memcpy
block size libcall rep1noalg rep4noalg rep8noalg loop
noalg unrlnoalg sse noalg bytePGO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95202
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
It's gone since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6.
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-01
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94867
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
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
Target Milestone: ---
Since the revision I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
|WAITING
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I see something like:
gcc pr95467.F90 -c -fopenmp -O2
pr95467.F90:11:18:
11 | !$OMP END PARALLEL
|1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48660
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48660&action=edit
work-in-progress patch
There's patch that does not stream all zero counters for a function. The patch
only supp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed on master with r8-5073-ge034c5c895722e00.
Please update to any of the supported compilers: 8,9,10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95467
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I have a patch candidate and I know the root cause of the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48661&action=edit
Patch candidate
@David: Can you please test the patch?
,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Ever confirmed|0
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
The ICE started with r10-5020
||-march=skylake-avx512 since
||r10-1052-gc29c92c789d93848
CC||fxue at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48664&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
> I will try to get more data on our real application.
>
> one question: why not just delete the entire records whose counter is zero
> and delete the entire file whose counter is zero?
Because we need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94853
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95492
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[10 Regression] test for|[10/11 Regression] test for
|vector members apparently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Is there a compile farm machine I can test it on?
Btw. can you please make a brief analysis why it fails (valgrind)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95572
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
> > --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> > Is there a compile farm machine I can test it on?
>
> Sure: gcc211 should do the trick.
Thanks.
Unfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to calixte from comment #11)
> Why did you remove __gcov_flush ?
It is not a supported __gcov_* library call:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov-and-Optimization.html
You should rather call _
: 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: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95580
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
: 11.0
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: msebor at gcc dot
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Using:
../configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48711
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48711&action=edit
Reproducer LTO bytecode
I think it would be easy to reproduce by LTO LTRANS .o file:
$ git co f8ca4dd657f767c5f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
The problematic STMT is:
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt(orig_stmt_info->stmt)
_22 = (boolean) _21;
which comes from:
(gdb) p debug_bb(bb)
[count: 0]:
_8 ={v} __gnat_dir_separator;
# DEBUG SR.1076 => _8
_9 ={v} _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95600
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Since r11-830 (g:85bce484d37fdda9c7eadb9bdcdb1ded891462bb), I've noticed
The revision is likely bad?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
701 - 800 of 15302 matches
Mail list logo
