0032.c:13:1: internal compiler error: in
eliminate_regs_in_insn, at lra-eliminations.c:1027
13 | }
| ^
0x6034fb eliminate_regs_in_insn(rtx_insn*, bool, bool, poly_int<1u, long>)
/var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-10.0.0_alpha20190623/work/gcc-10-20190623/gcc/lra-elimination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Even with -std=c++2a to disable extern templates, we only optimize at -Os, both
-O2 and -O3 fail to simplify (bad inlining decisions?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oferco at inter dot net.il
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Try -std=c++2a? The difference is whether the string functions are extern
templates (usual) or not (experimental support for future standards). I would
consider it a DUP of all the PRs that show the bad effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967
Bug ID: 90967
Summary: -Os produces more code than -O1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90408
Oliver Stoeneberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.3.0
Know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch addressing the bit manipulation functions so far:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00138.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
sched2 swaps the two insns (37 and 40 for me -- use -dp to see the numbers
in your .s file, use -da if you want lots of dumps, -dap together).
So why did sched2 decide it can swap these? They are in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Thomas,
I had come to the conclusion that the optimizer is screwing up somehow
and was going to suggest testing -fno-inline. Your splitting the files
was definitely the smoking gun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #14 from Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
addis 9,2,.LC1@toc@ha
ld 9,.LC1@toc@l(9)
...
ld 9,0(9)
...
ld 10,0(9)
...
mtctr 10
...
bctrl
.LC1:
.quad __f_MOD_c_
So that symbol is derefe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r263511.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Another data point.
If the test case is split across two files (the module separate
from the main program), then it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
I checked the *.optimized dump on POWER and x86_64 against each
other, and there are no differences (some renumbering of variables,
that's all).
Looking further...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90948
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> I think we can move this to NEW.
Please look at comment #10 to PR90786.
I am at a complete loss on this one.
What to do?
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 46511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46511&action=edit
x86_64 Assembler for testcase
Hi Thomas and Andrew,
I am at a complete loss on this one. The attached x86_64 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot co
25 matches
Mail list logo
