https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94267
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Well, yes .. &TARGET_MEM_REF is a LEA with a specific addressing mode. Folding
*&TARGET_MEM_REF would require us to verify the target can handle it (and avoid
PR110702 where it's fix was really the only sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111596
Bug ID: 111596
Summary: ICE on iostream as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For reference:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/13/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
I could not reduce to a single *.cc file. The function needs to be in an alt
file 'foo.cc'.
So could someone please compare:
g++ -std=c++11 -o works -O2 -g -Wfatal-errors -Werror -Wall -Wextra
-Wconve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55991
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55991&action=edit
widen_mul_test.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55990&action=edit
foo.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111427
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-26
Keywords|ra, wrong-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111595
Bug ID: 111595
Summary: detection of MIN/MAX with truncation and sign change
for the result
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111594
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > The SVE one was added with r12-4402-g62b505a4d5fc89:
> > ```
> > /* Detect simplication for a conditional reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111594
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The SVE one was added with r12-4402-g62b505a4d5fc89:
> ```
> /* Detect simplication for a conditional reduction where
>
>a = mask1 ? b : 0
>c = mask2 ? d +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111594
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
Oh, I see. Thanks a lot! I will have a try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111594
Bug ID: 111594
Summary: RISC-V: Failed to fold VEC_COND_EXPR and COND_LEN_ADD
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111533
--- Comment #3 from xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com ---
The problem has been reproduced, thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110148
--- Comment #7 from cuilili ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> I believe this has been fixed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm this is the latent bug in VSETVL PASS which is already existed for a
long time.
Lehua is working on refactoring Phase 1 and Phase 2 of VSETVL PASS which will
fix all potential issues of VSETVL PASS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94267
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Right now we depend on not doing the folding, PR 110702.
Well rather we depend on not folding *(&TARGET_MEM_REF) ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111497
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c23defed384cf17518ad6c817d94463a445d21b
commit r14-4256-g3c23defed384cf17518ad6c817d94463a445d21b
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111588
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This needs numbers, not opinions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111593
Bug ID: 111593
Summary: wrong code for 128-bit multiplication on MIPS64R6
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110827
--- Comment #10 from Michael Duggan ---
To sum up what I have figured out, C++ transforms the coroutine "function" into
a trio of functions: a ramp function, an actor function, and a destruction
function. The ramp function acts as the actual fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59298
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84693
Bug 84693 depends on bug 59298, which changed state.
Bug 59298 Summary: ICE when initialising PARAMETER array of derived-type
(containing an array) using array constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59298
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111570
--- Comment #2 from Brjd ---
Thank you and I also read this guide. My point is that the generic arch might
be possible in theory. If the gcc builds for the oldest CPU with x86_64, is it
possible that code will run on all modern CPU since their
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8)
> I'm going to close this as WONTFIX.
I guess I'll have to find another PR to lean on, for fixing the underlying
cause for the nonatomic code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111533
--- Comment #2 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Hi,
I believe the issue is that you're using rv64gc, not rv64gcv.
I haven't tried building with multilib, so my commands are:
../configure --with-arch=rv64gcv --with-abi=lp64d --enable-gcc-checking=rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111546
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on expanding argument |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111588
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>for programs that know they are effectively always multithreaded they pay for
>a runtime branch and .text segment bloat for an optimization that never
>applies.
The bloat is not much and the overhead for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.0
--- Comment #5 from Mathieu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109967
--- Comment #7 from Shaohua Li ---
This test case does not reproduce anymore on the current trunk. Maybe one of
the recent fixes fixed the underlying issue as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111530
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
constructor.
$ g++ --version
g++
(Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-1eb80f78f114f6582c349f75e08b361a0a582091-binutils-2.40)
14.0.0 20230925 (experimental)
$ cat source
struct ignore
{ ignore(...) {} };
template
void
InternalCompilerError(Args... args)
{ ignore{ ignore(args) ... }; }
int
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
I can make the upstream code fails using g++-11 / g++-12 version (Debian/sid).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55989
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55989&action=edit
cvise reduced test case
% g++ -std=c++11 -o works -DHWY_COMPILE_ONLY_EMU128 -DHWY_BROKEN_EMU128=0
-maltive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Bug ID: 111591
Summary: ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111590
Bug ID: 111590
Summary: RISC-V: Multiple ICE in gfortran regression with 'V'
Extension enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500
Luke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104773
Luke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cptarse-luke at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
for reference:
% c++ --verbose -O2 -flto base2.cc && ./a.out
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=c++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/13/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
If you download pr111522.cc from comment #8, you should be able to reproduce
exactly the original upstream issue.
Steps:
% c++ -O2 -flto pr111522.cc && ./a.out
vs
% c++ -O2 pr111522.cc && ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55988
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55988&action=edit
gcc -E -P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55987
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55987&action=edit
gcc -E -P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104611
Mathias Stearn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #5 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So this is again reassociation with LIM, the same issue as PR 111560.
For this similar code, GCC works as expected:
https://godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111589
Bug ID: 111589
Summary: Use relaxed atomic increment (but not decrement!) in
shared_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111588
Bug ID: 111588
Summary: Provide opt-out of shared_ptr single-threaded
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |patrick at rivosinc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #6 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #4)
> > > So the original
> > > (upstream) code is somewhat buggy as it rely on lazy init for global var.
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Trunk optimized stuff return 0, but fails to optimize out functions which
becomes unused after indirect inlining.
With -fno-early-inlining we end up with:
int m ()
{
void * D.48296;
int __args#0;
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111512
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The library has a workaround, but the front end still does unwanted ADL for
__builtin_memcpy (and probably other built-ins).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111511
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77cf3773021b0a20d89623e09d620747a05588ec
commit r14-4252-g77cf3773021b0a20d89623e09d620747a05588ec
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111512
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77cf3773021b0a20d89623e09d620747a05588ec
commit r14-4252-g77cf3773021b0a20d89623e09d620747a05588ec
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111570
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-25
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111584
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55986&action=edit
Full testcase
`-march=armv8.2-a+sve -O2 -msve-vector-bits=256`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111584
Bug ID: 111584
Summary: [aarch64] Redundant movprfx with ptrue
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500
--- Comment #7 from Luke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > This is most likely a dup of bug 104773.
>
> Or of bug 3507.
i concur...
but i do not know which one to choose...
they b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111583
Bug ID: 111583
Summary: [13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -Os on
x86_64-linux-gnu since r13-3281-g6cc3394507
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #4)
> > So the original
> > (upstream) code is somewhat buggy as it rely on lazy init for global var.
>
> Those global vars are in different namespace, I actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
> So the original
> (upstream) code is somewhat buggy as it rely on lazy init for global var.
Those global vars are in different namespace, I actually fail to underwhat why
the definition with ",cpu=pow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500
Bug 111500 depends on bug 111581, which changed state.
Bug 111581 Summary: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / uxth/sxth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60749
Luke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cptarse-luke at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581
Luke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110386
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bbac12ea7bd8a3eef5382e1b13f6019df4ec03f
commit r14-4249-g2bbac12ea7bd8a3eef5382e1b13f6019df4ec03f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For reference:
*
https://github.com/google/highway/commit/fea3dba9cfec3a74ddcd8ecac3a5d4d8429191e4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is just broken code.
>
> It does:
> #define HWY_BEFORE_NAMESPACE()
> \
> HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES("a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111578
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
79 matches
Mail list logo
