https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110371
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like NOP_EXPR is used instead of FLOAT_EXPR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #93 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #92)
> I remembered why I used two different insns - first to eliminate infinite
> loop with help of marking insn with attribute, and second because I could
> not set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110371
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55390&action=edit
pixman-matrix.c.i
I think I've hit the same thing building pixman.
```
# gcc
/var/tmp/portage/x11-libs/pixman-0.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #92 from Alexander Klepikov
---
I remembered why I used two different insns - first to eliminate infinite loop
with help of marking insn with attribute, and second because I could not set
attribute when emitting insn from C code. Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101703
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
A few more things to optimize:
```
bool minusne(bool a, bool b)
{
return (a - b) != 1;
}
bool ornot(bool a, bool b)
{
return !a | b; // or a <= b
}
bool minusne0(bool a, bool b)
{
return (a - b) != -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-08-02 00:00:00 |2023-6-22
Component|rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101703
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
bool f(bool a, bool b)
{
int t = a;
int t1 = b;
return (t + t1) & 2;
}
bool f1(bool a, bool b)
{
int t = a;
int t1 = b;
return (t & t1);
}
This is needed too:
```
(simplify
(ne (bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This should do it I think:
(for neeq (ne eq)
(simplify
(neeq (plus zero_one_valued_p@0 zero_one_valued_p@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
(with {
tree_code newcode = ERROR_MARK;
bool notatend = false;
tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|gfortran ICE "v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110283
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Antonio Sanchez from comment #3)
> @Andrew Pinsky can you elaborate on what's potentially wrong in the Eigen
> code?
>
> The template argument will ignore the `may_alias` attribute, but the
> `
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110283
Antonio Sanchez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c_antonio_sanchez at msn dot
com
---
.zero 27
.string "xyzt"
.zero 27
.string "1234"
.zero 27
.string "5678"
.zero 27
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 14.0.0 20230622 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110365
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #3)
> Sorry about the dup, and thanks for triaging it.
I really should fix PR 110252 before more different new testcases are produced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100650
--- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson ---
Thanks, Paul. No urgency. The workaround is simple and painless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is another testcase which shows the same behavior but turning off VRP and
a few others:
```
//-fselective-scheduling2 -O3 -fno-thread-jumps -fno-split-loops
-fno-tree-loop-ivcanon -fsel-sched-pipelini
algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20230622 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] wrong code |[14 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The latest version should be taken to be what's in the working draft
N3096, plus the editorial fixes from CD2 comments GB-081 through GB-084.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110371
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Created attachment 55388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55388&action=edit
Dump file.
This is the dump file generated by the -freport-bug run from the previous
attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110371
Bug ID: 110371
Summary: gfortran ICE "verify_gimple failed" in
gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059503.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55376|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80242
Roland Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at rschulz dot eu
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #0)
> > but the second line contains junk, as the tree-dump shows:
> >
> > static void val (character(kind=1)[1:1],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code on |[14 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 110346, which changed state.
Bug 110346 Summary: [C++26] P2752R3 - Static storage for braced initializers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110346
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110346
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110365
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Duplicate of bug 110252 really.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 110252 ***
Sorry about the dup, and thanks for triaging it.
-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230622 (experimental) [master r14-924-gd709841ae0f] (GCC)
[783] %
[783
nable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230622 (experimental) [master r14-924-gd709841ae0f] (GCC)
[814] %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The code can fixed using memcpy
> Replace:
> c += *data_16++
>
> With:
> unsigned tmp;
> memcpy(&tmp, data_16, sizeof(tmp));
> data_16++;
> c += tmp;
Small t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code can fixed using memcpy
Replace:
c += *data_16++
With:
unsigned tmp;
memcpy(&tmp, data_16, sizeof(tmp));
data_16++;
c += tmp;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is due to the code having undefined behavior in it. The code stores
in a variable as int but reads part of it via short type. That is an aliasing
violation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
--- Comment #1 from Jon Clugston ---
Created attachment 55385
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55385&action=edit
gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
Bug ID: 110368
Summary: Incorrect "is used uninitialized" warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110366
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110367
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110367
Bug ID: 110367
Summary: [C++26] Add new built-in for std::is_within_lifetime
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110366
Bug ID: 110366
Summary: [C++26] P2641R4 Checking if a union alternative is
active
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #11 from matoro ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> I think the first patch may result in duplicated notes, so I wouldn't
> recommend picking it.
Oh okay, so just the second patch then? Let me try that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110346
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think the first patch may result in duplicated notes, so I wouldn't recommend
picking it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexander Westbrooks from comment #11)
> (In reply to vegard from comment #10)
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #9)
> > > (In reply to alig from comment #8)
> > > > The problem stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110365
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
phiopt match-simplify trying:
d_6 > 0 ? 1 : e_1
Matching expression match.pd:1990, gimple-match-5.cc:23
Matching expression match.pd:1990, gimple-match-5.cc:23
Applying pattern match.pd:4742, gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Latest rev: https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3017.htm
-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230622 (experimental) [master r14-924-gd709841ae0f] (GCC)
[726] %
[726] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[727] %
[727] % gcctk -O2 small.c
[728
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
matoro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.3.1, 13.1.1
--- Comment #9 from matoro ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #4)
> Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation
> last week.
> I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110310
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> OK, so I take away from this that you don't think this is done the way
it is on purpose.
I don't think so, I think I just found a place where it was safe to do so, i.e.
where we knew the vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101002
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
Please be careful about the effect on AIX. AIX defaults to long-double-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
Thiago Jung Bauermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago.bauermann at linaro dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #12 from Neil Carlson ---
Paul,
> [...] there are some humdingers going back a long way that I will take a look
> at,
> once I am done with associate.
That would be great, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110364
Bug ID: 110364
Summary: [OpenMP] Environment vars - doc and device-specific
cleanup; make GOMP_DEBUG more useful; janitorial takes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110363
Bug ID: 110363
Summary: New use-after-move warning
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96208
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Smaller testcase, avoiding reductions and negative step:
void
test(double * __restrict a, double *b, double *k, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
a[2*i] = b[2*i] * k[ONE*i];
a[2*i + 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
Alexander Klepikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55367|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110310
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023, avieira at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110310
>
> --- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I can't remember the exact r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110362
Bug ID: 110362
Summary: Range information on lower bytes of __uint128_t
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
*** Bug 110326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Closed as a duplicate of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This should be closed as a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #7)
> > The problem seems really connected to optimization, if I compile our code
> > with -g -O0 or -g -O1, everything w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So we run into
/* Never inline regular functions into always-inline functions
during incremental inlining. This sucks as functions calling
always inline functions will get less opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #90 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #89)
> Here's what I did
> ...
Can you attach it here as a patch please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110361
Bug ID: 110361
Summary: [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when
using __builtin_unreachable since
r13-2020-g16b013c9d9b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So it's actually that we require the instantiations but we are not able to
fully optimize avx::[rect_]memset* before LTO streaming. In fact we're not too
far from that:
void skvx::Vec<2, unsigned int>::Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #89 from Alexander Klepikov
---
Here's what I did
sh.md:
(define_expand "ashrsi3"
[(parallel [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "")
(ashiftrt:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "arith_reg_operand" "")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4481d70c9edcd89a8d9f6c0d705b05230aa080e3
commit r12-9720-g4481d70c9edcd89a8d9f6c0d705b05230aa080e3
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0112ed013847ca9dbef4ba21f1c3f94c5bbe310b
commit r12-9719-g0112ed013847ca9dbef4ba21f1c3f94c5bbe310b
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0ab0d4af51382d9d8d4e6b026865842d8e06d7e
commit r12-9718-gc0ab0d4af51382d9d8d4e6b026865842d8e06d7e
Author: Alex Coplan
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #13 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The fix fixes llvm-12 build for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94648
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110310
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't remember the exact reason either, though I do vaguely remember niter
updating being something that we felt 'needed more future work' at the time.
Just a side question, AVX512 has predica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108964
rouca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.2.0 |14.0
--- Comment #1 from rouca ---
Hi,
On the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110332
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ac41866270e9fbab504bbda7a942a97abaa203a
commit r14-2031-g2ac41866270e9fbab504bbda7a942a97abaa203a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110335
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
void
h3(int to)
{
double dto = to;
double damt = dto +2;
if (damt != damt)
__builtin_trap();
}
```
Note we do optimize:
```
void
done(int to)
{
doub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
This is out of the scope of this PR, but in the [character, value, bind(c)]
case, only constant values and variables are supported?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
94 matches
Mail list logo
