https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try to see if using the ref set helps this case too? It might be train and ref
are really that difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is similar to pr 113646 really.
Looks like PR 113646 is PGO not autofdo, so the issue could be different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
A hack like below can recove performance and further improved 538.imagick_r by
5% w/ autofdo.
The hack prevents the scaling if ipa_count is zero but function body is hot.
diff --git a/gcc/predict.cc b/gcc/pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
Bug ID: 118551
Summary: Autofdo regressed 538.imagick_r by ~10% with
-march=x86-64-v3 -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118442
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
The problem seems to be that the call BB has an extra fallthrough edge to the
basic block containing the return. Perhaps it should just have an EXIT edge or
not split the RETURN? (not sure if that is legal in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118286
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
If you have the time, please go ahead and do the backports. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Now `#pragma GCC unroll(5)` is just a misreporting of the number of
> iterations; it was fully unrolled.
A Note on why it is fully unroll even though there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
--- Comment #3 from Tibor Győri ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The unroll 2 is correct, it was unrolled one time; likewise 3 is unrolled
> twice, etc. I suspect you are missunderstanding what the diagnostic is
> saying, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
--- Comment #2 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81978
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60198|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/x1eb6 |
|5jWf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-August/454527.html
>* it's *always* active for object-like macros (dangerous in portable code);
>* it's behind -Weverything / -pedantic for function-like macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60204
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60204&action=edit
macroexp-2c3e1495-c0b1cf80_libgccjit_repro.c.xz
Attached macroexp-2c3e1495-c0b1cf80_libgccjit_repro.c after patchi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118442
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118513
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20a4306793e4978dfff13ca669739eb46915d4e4
commit r15-7026-g20a4306793e4978dfff13ca669739eb46915d4e4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116308
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116308
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:deb3a4ae5dc04616dff893de074de0797594c98e
commit r15-7025-gdeb3a4ae5dc04616dff893de074de0797594c98e
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sat Jan 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> What does printing *wrapper in the debugger look like?
>
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x725f8007 in gcc::jit::wrapper_finalizer (pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Better testcase, I guess: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Yce4qEabM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117047
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I'm seeing this too.
```
Reading symbols from ../src/bootstrap-emacs...
(gdb) r
Starting program:
/var/tmp/portage/app-editors/emacs-31.0./work/emacs/src/bootstrap-emacs
-batch --no-site-file --no-site-lisp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57342
--- Comment #5 from Peter Damianov ---
This still happens on current gcc 15 trunk.
This also applies in to instances like:
```
struct s {};
void f (s) {}
void foo() {
f(2.0f);
};
```
Which results in:
: In function 'void foo()':
:5:7: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118543
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are defect reports in this area too.
I can also get an ICE with:
```
template
struct S {
enum class E : T;
enum E0 : T;
static constexpr T f(int) { return 0; };
static constexpr T f(c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118543
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60203&action=edit
Full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118543
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this code is IFNDR because a non-template form is invalid .
And GCC produces:
:14:25: error: 'static constexpr T S::f(char)' called in a constant
expression before its definition is complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/PshPT |
|968x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Oh! Yeah, that case works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Confirmed. It works for the added __builtin_unreachable if following through
> > for C++ though.
>
> I can't get it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118550
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simple workaround:
```
unsigned short readle(const unsigned char* data, TYPE offset)
{
const unsigned char *t = &data[offset];
unsigned char b0 = t[0], b1 = t[1];
return b0 | (b1 << 8);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arseny.kapoulkine at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed. It works for the added __builtin_unreachable if following through
> for C++ though.
I can't get it to fail for C++ either? (https://godbolt.org/z/cnnKWYr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118550
Bug ID: 118550
Summary: Missed optimization for fusing two byte loads with
offsets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
Bug ID: 118549
Summary: -funreachable-traps doesn't transform trivial
unreachable into trap
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118548
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
gcc.target/aarch64/acle/rwsr.c fails too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118548
Bug ID: 118548
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/acle/rwsr-2.c fails with older
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118547
Bug ID: 118547
Summary: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106433.c and others fail on
aarch64 with an older binutils
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118512
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118512
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Cheers Eric.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118512
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d309844d6fe02e695eb82cbd30fd135e836f24eb
commit r15-7023-gd309844d6fe02e695eb82cbd30fd135e836f24eb
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
Julian Andres Klode changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/openssl/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118286
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Ian, would you mind backporting to 12/13/14 (or I can)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118538
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118538
--- Comment #12 from Disservin ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> Can't repro with that either.
On which platform are you testing this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116308
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|ICE while compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Julian Andres Klode from comment #20)
> OK sorry folks, further debugging on that hunch on d15 from the minimized
> code led me to build libcrypto without assembler code and now apt works
> correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
--- Comment #20 from Julian Andres Klode ---
OK sorry folks, further debugging on that hunch on d15 from the minimized code
led me to build libcrypto without assembler code and now apt works correctly;
so my guess here really is that the hand-wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118545
Bug ID: 118545
Summary: d: Not all language options get a url in diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118538
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118546
Bug ID: 118546
Summary: std::experimental::simd operator== fails to compile
with clang++ 19.1.0 on x86-64-v4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118357
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118357
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9493e98da58c7689645b4ee1a2f653b86a5d758
commit r15-7021-gb9493e98da58c7689645b4ee1a2f653b86a5d758
Author: Jin Ma
Date: Sat Jan 18 07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98893
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
@Rainer, I think I've found the cause for discrepancy, a use of size_t vs.
widest integer for pointer offsets.
Can you give this a test?
--- a/gcc/d/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/d/expr.cc
@@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ public:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118529
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c81543b3379fa11742d2178b87edbf1e72799d61
commit r15-7020-gc81543b3379fa11742d2178b87edbf1e72799d61
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
Bug ID: 118544
Summary: -fopt-info misreports unroll factor when using #pragma
GCC unroll
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/x1eb65jWf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
--- Comment #19 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Julian Andres Klode from comment #18)
> Meanwhile, my initial attempt at cvise on the full .ii was not fruitful as I
> mocked that up using if (Encoding != Closes) exit(42) and cvise helpfully
> tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
--- Comment #18 from Julian Andres Klode ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #17)
> (In reply to Julian Andres Klode from comment #16)
>
> I built apt and couldn't reproduce it using this yet with tip of 14 release
> branch and trunk too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118543
Bug ID: 118543
Summary: Previous forward declaration of enum causes early
instantiation of later definition
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118513
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel Shead ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> (In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #4)
> > Confirmed. Without having looked into it too much I think maybe doing
> > `varpool_node::finalize_decl` migh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
--- Comment #1 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Uhm, I think I am wrong about MSVC -- without the new preprocessor enabled, it
doesn't seem it likes function-like macros anyhow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118537
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Julian Andres Klode from comment #16)
I built apt and couldn't reproduce it using this yet with tip of 14 release
branch and trunk too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118542
Bug ID: 118542
Summary: Split -Wexpansion-to-defined for function vs. object
like macros
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118538
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
I can't reproduce either. Let me try 14.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118541
--- Comment #3 from Jeevitha ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> This is about these glibc test suite failures, right?
>
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118466
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Removing bounds checking seems like a dangerous idea in general...
We do that in plenty of cases. It's provably false here. If anything,
optimising bound checks bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118509
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118509
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Renamed/reformatted:
struct A { void foo () { a = 1; } int a = 0; };
struct B : virtual A {};
typedef void (A::*C) ();
__attribute__((noipa))
void foo (C x, B *y)
{
(y->*x) ();
}
int
main ()
{
B b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118538
--- Comment #9 from Disservin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I think you should first report this to ubuntu since I can't reproduce it
> with all upstream sources of GCC, glibc.
I have opened a bug report here,
https://bugs.l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118541
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
This is about these glibc test suite failures, right?
FAIL: math/test-double-acospi
FAIL: math/test-float-acospi
FAIL: math/test-float32-acospi
FAIL: math/test-float32x-acospi
FAIL: math/test-float64-acosp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118495
--- Comment #5 from Brecht Sanders
---
Yes, it builds find with --with-libphobos-druntime-only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118534
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118534
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:413985b632afb07032d3b32d992029fced187814
commit r15-7014-g413985b632afb07032d3b32d992029fced187814
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
81 matches
Mail list logo
