Regressions on releases/gcc-14 at commit r14-10211 vs commit r14-10208 on
Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: libgomp.c++/../libgomp.c-c++-common/for-11.c execution test
On Linux/x86_64,
9b7cad5884f21cc5783075be0043777448db3fab is the first bad commit
commit 9b7cad5884f21cc5783075be0043777448db3fab
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed May 15 14:14:27 2024 +0200
Avoid pointer compares on TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in TBAA
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c scan-tr
Regressions on master at commit r15-513 vs commit r15-504 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c scan-tree-dump lim2 "Executing store motion"
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c scan-tree-dump lim2 "Executing store motion"
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr83215.C -std=gnu++14 scan
Regressions on master at commit r15-513 vs commit r15-508 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c scan-tree-dump lim2 "Executing store motion"
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c scan-tree-dump lim2 "Executing store motion"
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr83215.C -std=gnu++14 scan
On Linux/x86_64,
a71f90c5a7ae2942083921033cb23dcd63e70525 is the first bad commit
commit a71f90c5a7ae2942083921033cb23dcd63e70525
Author: Levy Hsu
Date: Thu May 9 16:50:56 2024 +0800
x86: Add 3-instruction subroutine vector shift for V16QI in
ix86_expand_vec_perm_const_1 [PR107563]
cause
Regressions on master at commit r15-500 vs commit r15-498 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr107563-a.C scan-assembler-times por 1
FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr107563-a.C scan-assembler-times psllw 1
FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr107563-a.C scan-assembler-times psraw 1
FAIL: g++.targe
On Mittwoch, 15. Mai 2024 09:06:57 MESZ Matthias Kretz wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 15. Mai 2024 04:20:51 MESZ Jiang, Haochen wrote:
> > I am little concerned about the file size, but let me give a try if you
> > can
> > see the attachment.
>
> [...]
> But now that I established a theory of why this fail
On Mittwoch, 15. Mai 2024 04:20:51 MESZ Jiang, Haochen wrote:
> I am little concerned about the file size, but let me give a try if you can
> see the attachment.
Thank you. Since you only executed one test it's not that bad (it's hard to
read without a few abbreviation substitutions).
Anyway, it