https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93037
Bug ID: 93037
Summary: Slow 'while' loop unrolling
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93015
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Dec 21 11:25:05 2019
New Revision: 279695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid segfault when doing IPA-VRP but not IPA-CP (PR 93015)
2019-12-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
--- Comment #3 from Colin H Close ---
Created attachment 47539
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47539&action=edit
Shell script containing compiler commands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
--- Comment #4 from Colin H Close ---
Here's a new link for the sources (much reduced in size) Which have been
massaged to make them more portable.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13KecN2DjtNsO2i3oJDhFoaUv06CoP6OB/view?usp=sharing
Untar the arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
[...]
> (there are some issues with the paths, where some of the events aren't being
> printed, presumably due to having UNKNOWN_LOCATION; will investigate)
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93038
Bug ID: 93038
Summary: Missing dependencies in depfile for imported files at
compilation time
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
Bug ID: 93039
Summary: Fails to use SSE bitwise ops for float-as-int
manipulations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Eventually it would be nicer to use SSE bitwise operations for this, for
> example LLVM already generates
> f:
> orps.LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91661
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 21 16:19:42 2019
New Revision: 279696
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279696&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/92753
* expr.c (find_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
--- Comment #3 from Pascal Cuoq ---
@amonakov
The two blog posts below exist themselves, and describe tools that exist,
because software that makes misaligned access exists, although it seems to
be a “examples too numerous to list” situation (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> I would prefer this second approach.
The downside of it is that it requires adding a keyword that the standard says
is completely redundant, in order to get c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 21 18:21:21 2019
New Revision: 279697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279697&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/92753
* expr.c (find_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92999
--- Comment #1 from Jim Rees ---
Reproduced on gcc-9.2 and figured out a fix, though I'm not savvy enough with
this code to say it's a complete fix.
In (gcc-9.2.0 release) gcc/config/arm/arm.c:
6226a6227
> int ag_mode_size;
6241c6242,62
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93026
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
The recent r279626 "OpenACC 2.6 deep copy: middle-end parts" contains changes
related to this (which caused PR93026).
Would've been good to first sort out the desired behavior (this PR92929) before
introdu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > I would prefer this second approach.
>
> The downside of it is that it requires adding a keyword that the stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92990
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sat Dec 21 20:25:43 2019
New Revision: 279698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-21 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/92990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92990
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it wouldn't be redundant for GCC, it would have a different, non-portable
meaning. Does it say "inline constexpr" because the code was written by someone
who likes redundancy for the sake of explicitnes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91661
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sat Dec 21 20:42:14 2019
New Revision: 279699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-21 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/91661
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91661
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21823
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86176
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> No, because GCC is not a static analyser.
It'll have one once David Malcolm's static analyzer branch is merged
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93026
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Sat Dec 21 21:32:36 2019
New Revision: 279700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR93026, PR92929] Adjust 'gfortran.dg/goacc/finalize-1.f' for r2796
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Sat Dec 21 21:32:36 2019
New Revision: 279700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR93026, PR92929] Adjust 'gfortran.dg/goacc/finalize-1.f' for r2796
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72715
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
--- Comment #5 from Colin H Close ---
Created attachment 47540
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47540&action=edit
Easy compile of pre-processed source
Even easier reproduction of the fault.
Untar the archive and run create_er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
--- Comment #6 from Colin H Close ---
Removing the lto flag allowed the source to compile without error.
To make sure it wasn't a linker issue I ran tests with both the bfd and gold
linkers by using -fuser-ld= both failed with the identical error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93040
Bug ID: 93040
Summary: gcc doesn't optimize unaligned accesses to a 16-bit
value on the x86 as well as it does a 32-bit value (or
clang)
Product: gcc
Version: unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93040
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93040
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
the bswap pass should have detected it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93040
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92998
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Sun Dec 22 01:35:08 2019
New Revision: 279709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Restrict some aarch64 testcases to little-endian
2019-12-21 Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #22 from miles at gnu dot org ---
This seems to have been fixed a long time ago (all the examples in the comment
yield the "right" result).
Can somebody close this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93041
Bug ID: 93041
Summary: GCC 10.0 with '-Os', '-O2' and '-O3' compiled program
crashes when it shouldn't
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93041
--- Comment #1 from WHR ---
This happens with in x86_64 (-m64) and i386 (-m32) targets.
But not in early versions such GCC 9.2.
As a reference, compiling it with GCC 9.2 didn't trigger the crash:
$ gcc-9.2 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93041
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So what is happening is (infinite) loops can be removed if they have no side
effects.
So we start with:
:
label1:
if (p_3(D) != 0B)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
// predicted unlikely
44 matches
Mail list logo
