https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88289
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 1 07:31:56 2018
New Revision: 266708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/88289
* asan.c (asan_redzone_buffer::flush_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 1 07:27:58 2018
New Revision: 266707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/54589
* combine.c (find_split_point): For invali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87675
--- Comment #4 from N1705695H at e dot ntu.edu.sg ---
(In reply to Scott Gayou from comment #3)
> My last comment was a bit confusing. I can reproduce 2/3 on a standard
> system, and the other 1/3 requires dropping ulimit -s down a bit. (to 4096).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #32 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
New patch posted for review here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg4.html
Dear Sir/Madam,
Glad to hear that you’re in loop of metallurgy business. We specialize in this
field for years with strength of roll providing, hot-rolled steel section and
cold rolling service of technical upgrading of metallurgical factory all over
the world.
As a excellent service p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88048
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #1)
> Invalid code nearby, down to at least gcc-5 :
>
>
> $ cat z4.f90
> subroutine s(x)
>integer, allocatable :: x(:)
>data x(1:2) /3, 4/
> end
Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88048
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
> With invalid code :
>
>
> $ cat z1.f90
> program p
>integer, parameter :: a(2) = 1
>data a(2) /a(1)/
>print *, a
> end
>
>
> $ gfortran-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88079
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c (revision 266386)
+++ gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/fortran/io.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/io.c(revision 266386)
+++ gcc/fortran/io.c(working copy)
@@ -2161,6 +2161,12 @@ gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
> Affects versions 7,8,9 :
>
>
> $ cat z1.f90
> program p
>integer, parameter :: z(4) = [1,2,3,4]
>integer :: k = 2
>print *, [real(z(k))]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88228
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c (revision 266386)
+++ gcc/fortran/expr.c (working copy)
@@ -2688,6 +2688,9 @@ c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 regression] phi-opt-11 |[8 regression] phi-opt-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:27:23 2018
New Revision: 266701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88274
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:26:41 2018
New Revision: 266700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/85368
* params.def (PARAM_LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88249
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 79768, which changed state.
Bug 79768 Summary: `-Wmaybe-uninitialized' false positive with optimisation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88179
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:06:51 2018
New Revision: 266697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266697&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64242
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_longjmp):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88289
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. on x86_64 in user-after-scope-5.c I see:
.string "1 48 40 9 values:10"
Partition 0: size 40 align 16
values
Flushing rzbuffer at offset -128 with: f1 f1 f1 f1
Flushing rzbuffer at offset -96 with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88249
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290
Bug ID: 88290
Summary: [9 regression] 23_containers/deque/erasure.cc fails
after r266672
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
This could also be a gold linker issue too.
But then again this is not the right place to report a gold or glibc issue.
Try https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-*-linux-gnu
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, stephen.kim at oracle dot com wrote:
> The glibc commit that triggered this bug is:
> bfff8b1becd7d01c074177df7196ab327cd8c844
That's the copyright date updates for 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88288
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88288
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why not update goacc_parallel_keyed to use gomp_map_val instead computing
devaddrs manually? That would help reduce the number of duplicate mystery
formulas in libgomp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 20:55:41 2018
New Revision: 266689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/85550
* g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr85550.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87924
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Nov 30 20:39:30 2018
New Revision: 266686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87924] Add (XFAILed) test cases for OpenACC wait clauses without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88288
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Nov 30 20:39:49 2018
New Revision: 266688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR88288, OpenACC, libgomp] Adjust offsets for present data clauses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88289
Bug ID: 88289
Summary: [9 regression] r24 causes asan to fail on
many/most tests on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88179
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 30 20:15:56 2018
New Revision: 266682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-30 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/88179
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85220
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88277
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88288
Bug ID: 88288
Summary: [OpenACC, libgomp] Adjust offsets for present data
clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88287
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, it is unclear to me how to reproduce it, I've tried
./cc1plus -quiet -O -msve-vector-bits=256 vcond_1.C -o vcond_1.s -nostdinc
-march=armv8.4-a+simd
with the match.pd changes reverted and the same withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88287
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FAILs just because it has too much scan-assembler in it and expects something
in particular, or do we generate worse code?
The patch certainly added some canonicalization that was previously done only
for sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88287
Bug ID: 88287
Summary: [9 Regression] aarch64/sve/vcond_1.C fails since
r266620
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88285
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
However, this same commit also introduced a regression:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
with gcc configured
--target arm-none-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> This is caused by the change in r266385 for PR87718.
>
> That causes the cost model to go completely off the rail and also changes
> the register classes.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87496
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Nov 30 18:57:33 2018
New Revision: 266680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/87496
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88286
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87246
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And that hook indeed returns the need for secondary reload there, so looks like
LRA bug for not honoring it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88286
Bug ID: 88286
Summary: gfortran reports conflicting intent(in) with an
intent(in) declared class variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45129|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88137
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:46:55 2018
New Revision: 266678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Initialize backtrace state once
From backtrace.h for backtrace_create_stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87718
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88137
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:44:27 2018
New Revision: 266677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Initialize backtrace state once
From backtrace.h for backtrace_create_stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
Hi Jakub, thanks for doing this.
I tested on many combination of arm* targets, and it was OK except for some of
them:
--target arm-none-eabi
--with-mode thumb
--with-cpu cortex-m3
--with-fpu default
--tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88285
Bug ID: 88285
Summary: [9 Regression] gcc.dg/predict-22.c fails on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 30, 2018 4:28:54 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
>
>--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>I wonder about something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88257
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Any progress on this? It really slows down test runs as it hangs twice and has
to wait for the timeout to occur to continue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88257
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Nov 30 15:57:37 2018
New Revision: 266671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ICE in substring locations from macros in header files (PR
preproce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wonder about something like:
--- gcc/config/i386/sse.md.jj 2018-11-29 23:16:06.481301632 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/sse.md 2018-11-30 16:21:21.480379008 +0100
@@ -7248,6 +7248,17 @@
(set_attr "pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, we also have vec_concatv2di pattern that handles:
(set (match_operand:V2DI 0 ("register_operand") ("=Yr,*x,x ,v ,v,v ,x
,x,v ,x,x,v"))
(vec_concat:V2DI (match_operand:DI 1 ("nonimm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> All these use something like:
> (insn 7 6 13 2 (set (reg:V8SI 87)
> (unspec:V8SI [
> (mem:V4SI (reg:DI 90) [0 *x_3(D)+0 S16 A128])
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 30 15:06:22 2018
New Revision: 26
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=26&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Call decl_default_tls_model with a proper type (PR gcov-profile/88279).
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
--- Comment #35 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 30 14:25:15 2018
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make red zone size more flexible for stack variables (PR sanitizer/81715)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88220
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
So the issue is that in WPA we mix:
void a() __asm__("open64");
and
void open64() {}
Then we stream out:
*open64/0 (a) @0x7698f5a0
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: externally_visible p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
--- Comment #2 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
I don't know if I should create a separate bug report or not, since it looks
kind of related.
I've tried to replace the operator of the function e with other and it
generates a branch with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88284
Bug ID: 88284
Summary: nios2: pessimistic ldw-to-stwio scheduling
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
To clarify, the decl/type mixup is causing the compiler to use local-dynamic
TLS references where general-dynamic are intended (and were used prior to the
patch).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88267
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> But it's hidden, so I'm not sure we care.
I noticed that using objdump -d where the tools assigns names to locations of
which it knows name.
> OTOH not sure wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One related testcase that fails:
$ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr41470.c
-fstack-clash-protection -O2 -fno-tree-ccp
during RTL pass: reload
/home/marxin/Programming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88283
Bug ID: 88283
Summary: ICE in try_improve_iv_set, at
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:6677
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
Bug ID: 88282
Summary: ICE in df_install_refs at gcc/df-scan.c:2379
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
>
> --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > It's the opposite, we need to hide T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88281
Bug ID: 88281
Summary: SLP permutation check fails to fall back to strided
loads
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
Stephen Kim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is enough to test it with:
cd build-dir/gcc
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp='binop-xor1.c builtin-bswap-7.c pr21643.c
pr46309.c' tree-ssa.exp='forwprop-28.c phi-opt-11.c phi-opt-2.c reassoc-32.c
reass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
Bug ID: 88280
Summary: missing folding of logical and bitwise AND
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's the opposite, we need to hide TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE to preserve checks in
> Ada, otherwise the optimizer happily removes them.
To be more explicit: in Ada, you can check at run time whether a value is v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88272
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Where do we set the cut-off? ;)
-fuser-patience=
I would cut it off for things that are obviously derived from sign of
64bit value :)) Those are most common.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88279
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.28
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
