https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #38 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The first patch actually helping this case is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00836.html
But the real problem lies in scev/ivopt about how type conversion and scev
overflow are ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 13 08:47:14 2015
New Revision: 221409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/44563
* tree-cfgcl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 13 08:52:51 2015
New Revision: 221410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-12 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/44563
* tree-inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #25 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed presumably ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65412
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think there exist patches for if-to-switch conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
ISTR there is an even older bug for this - PR36043.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #28)
> Created attachment 35024 [details]
> modified testcase without bswap optimization
>
> This modified testcase avoids triggering the bswap optimization but still
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65371
--- Comment #2 from Stuart ---
I compiled it for x86_64 and thought it was fine, however, after your comment I
tried compiling it with clang/llvm and can see the difference (I'm not
particularly familiar with the full instruction set)...
I've fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've so far came up with:
--- gcc/expr.c.jj2015-01-19 09:31:15.0 +0100
+++ gcc/expr.c2015-03-13 11:30:25.699805379 +0100
@@ -6656,14 +6656,18 @@ store_field (rtx target, HOST_WIDE_INT b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
This looks redundant to me, the following is sufficient:
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 221407)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doesn't it generate worse code though? I mean, for BLKmode PARALLEL, forcing
it into some very wide pseudo (TImode in this case, perhaps OImode for even
larger ones?) and then storing might be more expensive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed on trunk.
Joel, can you please confirm for you and close if appropriate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 13 10:48:44 2015
New Revision: 221413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/64600 Fix another ICE with -mtune=xscale:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, the pessimization (your patch vs. my patch) is only at -O0:
+movl%edx, %ecx
+movl%ecx, %esi
+movq%rdx, %rdi
+movabsq$-4294967296, %rcx
+andq%rdi, %rcx
+orq%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
The difference is that we go through a pseudo with my version, but the code is
optimal at -O1:
call_Z8copy_foo3Foo
movq%rax, a(%rip)
movb%dl, a+8(%rip)
and the change looks safe enou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I agree for 4.8/4.9 that your version is safer.
Anyway, you're the RTL maintainer, so I'll let you decide.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57221
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'm going to remove the regression marker on this as this is now just purely
further code size improvements. Please submit patches on
gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org for further discussion. Patches attached t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65416
Bug ID: 65416
Summary: xtensa: memory allocated by alloca is used before the
stack pointer is updated
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm,
I tried this:
--- gcc/ipa-split.c.jj2015-02-08 21:13:01.0 +0100
+++ gcc/ipa-split.c2015-03-13 11:29:08.878923384 +0100
@@ -1509,6 +1509,16 @@ split_function (struct split_point *spli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65417
Bug ID: 65417
Summary: debug/elf: lacks support for PPC relocations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65418
Bug ID: 65418
Summary: [5 Regression] vim miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35016|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65359
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #25)
> Fixed presumably ?
Mostly. The remaining issue with configure-time options reaching the jit is
when gcc is configured with:
--with-arch=native
I atte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #32 from Alan Modra ---
Richi, ptr+12 is nonsense. Suppose ptr is 16k+1, then first vector loads from
16k and second from the same address since (16k+1+12) & ~15 == 16k. But we
want to end up with 15 bytes from the first 16-byte ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #33 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
FWIW Alan's new testcase started to fail with r212452.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65416
--- Comment #1 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's ok up to sched2 pass, but sched2 does the following to it:
;; ==
;; -- basic block 62 from 252 to 295 -- after reload
;; ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #26 from Joey Ye ---
Regression disappeared from 4.9 branch since Aug 2014, though the problem
discussed here is not yet confirmed solved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #34 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #29)
> CCing Bill because this might be a bug in rs6000_analyze_swaps().
Adding -mno-optimize-swaps to Alan's example does not fix the problem, so no...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65418
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35028
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35028&action=edit
gcc5-pr65418.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
--- Comment #2 from Balakrishnan B ---
Can someone please confirm the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note to self. This is the case dr_explicit_realign: case of vectorizable_load.
(ptr + 12) & -16L - i.e. vs_minus_1 * TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (element) is reasonable
for the case where the original stmt data ref is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
ok,
this should fix the second regression:
Index: tsan.c
===
--- tsan.c(revision 221355)
+++ tsan.c(working copy)
@@ -682,6 +682,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #7 from Stéphane Graber ---
So with the cherry-picked fix, I get:
(vivid-powerpc-sbuild)root@winton-06:~# cat test.go
package main
/*
#include
now
void hello() {
printf("Hello world!\n");
}
*/
import "C"
func main() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #8 from Stéphane Graber ---
Mathias suggested this may be #65417 but I'm not familiar enough with gccgo and
cgo to know whether that's the case or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It could be due to PR 65417, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I agree for 4.8/4.9 that your version is safer.
> Anyway, you're the RTL maintainer, so I'll let you decide.
OK, testing went fine, so I'll go for this version on all branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
Bug ID: 65419
Summary: incorrect sibcalls to libgomp functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65420
Bug ID: 65420
Summary: Enumerators in std::regex_constants should be
constexpr variables instead
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64623
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #15 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am not sure yet where and how to improve this automatically but I have found
an interesting hand optimization that could point to a way to fix this. If I
change the original function:
int foo(int *p, unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #16 from Sebastian Pop ---
Created attachment 35030
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35030&action=edit
IR before and after for failing FSM jump thread
After updating the sources of GCC, I now see the fail as Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #17 from Sebastian Pop ---
Trying to figure out why we FSM jump thread this path: (13, 53) (53, 55) (55,
64) (64, 66) (66, 67) (67, 68) (68, 69) (69, 95) (95, 94) (94, 5) (94,
5)
In BB_94 we have this code:
switch (spr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65421
Bug ID: 65421
Summary: inefficient code returning float aggregates on
powepc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65422
Bug ID: 65422
Summary: [C++11] Rejected valid double expansion packs.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 35033
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35033&action=edit
stripped down second test case
For completeness, here is the stripped down test case for the tail call flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58744
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46038
mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62116
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
72 matches
Mail list logo
