[Bug c++/107600] New __is_destructible built-in

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107600 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- *** Bug 120504 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/120504] [16 Regression] gcc-16 fails to build llvm-20 and gdb-16.3 unique_ptr.h:91:23: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to incomplete type ... since r16-944-g0629924777ea20

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120504 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---

[Bug other/120493] 2 different functions to get call RTX from CALL_INSN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120493 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/120494] get_call_fndecl requires REG_CALL_DECL note

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120494 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-05-30 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/120493] New: 2 different functions to get call RTX from CALL_INSN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120493 Bug ID: 120493 Summary: 2 different functions to get call RTX from CALL_INSN Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug other/120494] New: get_call_fndecl requires REG_CALL_DECL note

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120494 Bug ID: 120494 Summary: get_call_fndecl requires REG_CALL_DECL note Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: othe

[Bug target/120427] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] "and $0,mem" is generated without -Oz since r12-6106-gef26c151c14a87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Another issue with the commit: +;; With -Oz, transform mov $imm,reg to the shorter push $imm; pop reg. +(define_peephole2 + [(set (match_operand:SWI248 0 "general_reg_operand") + (match_operand:SWI248 1 "const_

[Bug target/120429] New: pcmpeqd isn't used for all 1s in *movv2si_internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120429 Bug ID: 120429 Summary: pcmpeqd isn't used for all 1s in *movv2si_internal Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug tree-optimization/120426] XMM store isn't used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120426 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > With -mtune=sapphirerapids we get: > >[local count: 1073741824]: > MEM [(union *)lock_2(D)] = 0; > MEM [(union *)lock_2(D) + 8B] = 0; > MEM [(union *)

[Bug target/120427] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] "and $0,mem" is generated without -Oz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/120427] New: [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] "and $0, mem" is generated without -Oz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427 Bug ID: 120427 Summary: [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] "and $0,mem" is generated without -Oz Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/120426] New: XMM store isn't used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120426 Bug ID: 120426 Summary: XMM store isn't used Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug bootstrap/110180] On Fedora 38, egrep is now obsolescent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110180 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Version|unknown

[Bug bootstrap/110180] On Fedora 38, egrep is now obsolescent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110180 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/120419] New: grep: warning: egrep is obsolescent; using grep -E

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120419 Bug ID: 120419 Summary: grep: warning: egrep is obsolescent; using grep -E Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c++/120409] New: FAIL: g++.dg/coroutines/torture/pr119916.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409 Bug ID: 120409 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/coroutines/torture/pr119916.C Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/120252] -fpatchable-function-entry doesn't work with -ffunction-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120252 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/120252] -fpatchable-function-entry doesn't work with -ffunction-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120252 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/120252] -fpatchable-function-entry doesn't work with -ffunction-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120252 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 61415 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61415&action=edit A patch

[Bug middle-end/120252] New: -fpatchable-function-entry doesn't work with -ffunction-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120252 Bug ID: 120252 Summary: -fpatchable-function-entry doesn't work with -ffunction-sections Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/120234] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr111023-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120234 Bug ID: 120234 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr111023-2.c Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug target/120233] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr108938-3.c scan-assembler-times bswap[\t ]+ 3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120233 Bug ID: 120233 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr108938-3.c scan-assembler-times bswap[\t ]+ 3 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug target/120228] New: Need to call df_insn_rescan after emit_insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120228 Bug ID: 120228 Summary: Need to call df_insn_rescan after emit_insn Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: targ

[Bug target/120217] FAIL: std/ranges/adaptors/p2770r0.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120217 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/120217] FAIL: std/ranges/adaptors/p2770r0.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120217 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Never mind. It was caused by my local changes.

[Bug middle-end/120217] New: FAIL: std/ranges/adaptors/p2770r0.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120217 Bug ID: 120217 Summary: FAIL: std/ranges/adaptors/p2770r0.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors) Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug target/120215] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr78794.c scan-assembler pandn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215 Bug ID: 120215 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr78794.c scan-assembler pandn Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/92080] Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61392|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug debug/120207] print_rtl_single_with_indent is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120207 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|1 |0 Component|middle-end

[Bug rtl-optimization/92080] Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/92080] Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0

[Bug debug/120207] New: [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] print_rtl_single_with_indent is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120207 Bug ID: 120207 Summary: [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] print_rtl_single_with_indent is undefined Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/120201] generates a misaligned vector operation for std::memcpy with -march=znver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120201 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |sanitizer CC|

[Bug libgomp/120167] [16 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-1.c by r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120167 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[16 Regression] FAIL: |[16 Regression] FAIL: |libg

[Bug libgomp/120167] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120167 Bug ID: 120167 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-1.c Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/120036] [16 Regression] ICE on highway-1.2.0: during RTL pass: rrvl: in gen_rtx_SUBREG, at emit-rtl.cc:1032 since r16-271-gd1cada7481420a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120036 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Plea

[Bug c++/120092] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/coroutines/torture/pr103953.C -O3 -g execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120092 Bug ID: 120092 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/coroutines/torture/pr103953.C -O3 -g execution test Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug middle-end/120094] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vla-1.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " s=> i" 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120094 Bug ID: 120094 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vla-1.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " s=> i" 2 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/120093] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr101145.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120093 Bug ID: 120093 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr101145.c Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: mid

[Bug target/120091] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr119919.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120091 Bug ID: 120091 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr119919.c Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/120090] New: [16 Regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-pr103750-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120090 Bug ID: 120090 Summary: [16 Regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-pr103750-2.c Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug target/120036] [16 Regression] ICE on highway-1.2.0: during RTL pass: rrvl: in gen_rtx_SUBREG, at emit-rtl.cc:1032 since r16-271-gd1cada7481420a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120036 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug target/119985] TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_RETURN is still referenced in target.def

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119985 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Resolution|---

[Bug target/117547] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/*-pr93673.c without TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/117839] Redundant vector XOR instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117839 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Status|NEW

[Bug target/117547] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/*-pr93673.c without TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- We have [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr117547]$ cat x.c #include __mmask64 foo (__mmask64 d) { d = __builtin_ia32_kshiftridi (d, 0xff); return d; } [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr117547]$ make /export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-

[Bug target/119979] [16 Regression] Recent promote_prototypes change breaks multiple ports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- We need to make sure that incoming argument isn't promoted by TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE.

[Bug target/119979] [16 Regression] Recent promote_prototypes change breaks multiple ports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3) > sh4eb is showing similar failures Is this the same issue: static machine_mode sh_promote_function_mode (const_tree type, machine_mode mode,

[Bug target/119979] [16 Regression] Recent promote_prototypes change breaks multiple ports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-28 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/119979] [16 Regression] Recent promote_prototypes change breaks multiple ports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 61231 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61231&action=edit A patch Please try this. I suspect that all targets using default_promote_function_mode_always_promote are broken.

[Bug target/119985] New: TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_RETURN is still referenced in target.def

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119985 Bug ID: 119985 Summary: TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_RETURN is still referenced in target.def Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/119982] [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr109362.c scan-assembler \tmovq\t8\\(%rdi\\), %r by r16-190-g6901d56fea2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug middle-end/119982] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr109362.c scan-assembler \tmovq\t8\\(%rdi\\), %r by r16-190-g6901d56fea2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982 Bug ID: 119982 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr109362.c scan-assembler \tmovq\t8\\(%rdi\\), %r by r16-190-g6901d56fea2132 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug target/117863] Missing pcmpeq splitters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117863 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119784] -mapxf saves registers beyond red zone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.3 Resolution|---

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls (inc. preserve_none for x86_64?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9) > I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the > patch at > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads > applied

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls (inc. preserve_none for x86_64?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61120|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls (inc. preserve_none for x86_64?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9) > I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the > patch at > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads > applied

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 61120 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61120&action=edit A tested patch

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61093|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/119784] -mapxf saves registers beyond red zone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 61098 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61098&action=edit A patch I am testing this.

[Bug target/119784] New: -mapxf saves registers beyond red zone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784 Bug ID: 119784 Summary: -mapxf saves registers beyond red zone Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- no_caller_saved_registers only works with XMM and ZMM, not YMM, since YMM load will clear the upper 256 bits of ZMM.

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-09 CC|

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to ak from comment #2) > The existing attributes could just handle this case? Caller needs to know what registers are saved by callee. But caller doesn't know what ISAs are used by callee.

[Bug target/119628] Need better mechanisms to manage register saves in callee for tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- no_calle(e|r)_saved_registers=gpr(16|32)?

[Bug fortran/119540] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119540 Bug ID: 119540 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O0 execution test Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/119539] New: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/apx-nf.c scan-assembler-times {nf} rol 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119539 Bug ID: 119539 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/apx-nf.c scan-assembler-times {nf} rol 4 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/119386] [14/15 Regression][x64] Shared libraries can no longer be compiled with profiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #11) > access to the respective GOT slot). Upstream binutils now silently do emit a > route via PLT, our binutils complain. I'm not sure that upstream behaviour > is > i

[Bug target/119386] [14/15 Regression][x64] Shared libraries can no longer be compiled with profiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/117069] [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c since r15-268-g9dbff9c05520a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8) > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6) > > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler > > ability of generating code_6_gottpoff_reloc

[Bug target/117069] [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c since r15-268-g9dbff9c05520a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6) > > > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler >

[Bug tree-optimization/119299] Jump followed by jump not optimized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119299 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to AK from comment #0) ... > https://godbolt.org/z/3xh6Mxq4j FYI, https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/condjmp/gcc-16?ref_type=heads generates: .globl g1 .type g1, @func

[Bug middle-end/119297] New: Dead local vector variable isn't removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119297 Bug ID: 119297 Summary: Dead local vector variable isn't removed Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/119294] Could improve vector formation when generated using a loop (vector char)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119294 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- CSE turns (insn 18 16 19 2 (set (mem/c:V16QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 19 frame) (const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 MEM [(void *)&x]+0 S16 A128]) (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4SI 111) 0)) "x.c":11:

[Bug rtl-optimization/119297] Dead local vector variable isn't removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119297 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|middle-end

[Bug rtl-optimization/119171] [15 Regression] error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints or there are not enough registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED

[Bug rtl-optimization/119171] [15 Regression] error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints or there are not enough registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/119171] New: [15 Regression] error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints or there are not enough registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171 Bug ID: 119171 Summary: [15 Regression] error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints or there are not enough registers Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119142] [15 Regression] Many regressions since r15-7852 on i686-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 60673 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60673&action=edit A patch I am testing this with if (GENERAL_REGNO_P (hard_regno)) { /* push is 1 byte while typical spil

[Bug target/119142] [15 Regression] Many regressions since r15-7852 on i686-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Something like diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc index 661e71b032c..8e599bb22fc 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc @@ -20613,11 +20613,10 @@ ix86_calle

[Bug target/119142] [15 Regression] Many regressions since r15-7852 on i686-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-03-07 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119083] Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 60647 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60647&action=edit A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU 201

[Bug target/119083] Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > > SSE_FIRST_REG is in ic86_class_likely_spilled_p because it is a > > single-member class. It is there because of SSE4 pcmpistrm

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for x86-64?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #14) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > > > Created attachment 60609 [details] > > > An untested patch > > > > Hongtao, do

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for x86-64?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > Created attachment 60609 [details] > An untested patch Hongtao, do you have SPEC CPU2017 data on this patch?

[Bug target/119083] Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119083] Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 60640 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60640&action=edit A patch to remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU2017

[Bug target/119083] New: Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083 Bug ID: 119083 Summary: Remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > Created attachment 60609 [details] > An untested patch Tested on x86-64 with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}'". There are no regressions.

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #60607|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > Created attachment 60607 [details] > A patch > > Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to > return false for x86-64. This doesn't work: /ex

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Testing this: diff --git a/gcc/ira.cc b/gcc/ira.cc index 885239d1b43..e93a596e2a9 100644 --- a/gcc/ira.cc +++ b/gcc/ira.cc @@ -2158,6 +2158,10 @@ decrease_live_ranges_number (void) || (targetm.small_regis

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 60607 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60607&action=edit A patch Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to return false for x86-64.

[Bug target/118996] Should TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P return false for APX?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES was added by commit c98f874233428d7e6ba83def7842fd703ac0ddf1 Author: James Van Artsdalen Date: Sun Feb 9 13:28:48 1992 + Initial revision which became TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLA

[Bug target/118992] Redundant argument set up for call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #60590|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/118992] Redundant argument set up for call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > > Created attachment 60590 [details] > > A patch > > > > Can you try this on SPEC CPU? > > No big impact for both O2 and Ofa

[Bug target/118992] Redundant argument set up for call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 60590 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60590&action=edit A patch Can you try this on SPEC CPU?

[Bug target/118992] Redundant argument set up for call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9) > > > Remove check of 2 hooks regressed > > gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr111673.c check-function-bodies advance > unix/-m32: gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >