https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99043
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565195.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-12
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94713
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
This also works with: gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #95 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95d94b52ea8478334fb92cca545f0bd904bd0034
commit r11-7205-g95d94b52ea8478334fb92cca545f0bd904bd0034
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97742
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf059e1c099ed45c97f740c030dcb8e146ac7d4a
commit r11-7206-gcf059e1c099ed45c97f740c030dcb8e146ac7d4a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] endless |[10 Regression] endless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
Neither Gerhard's original code nor my patch fixed other ICEs.
Here's a test program for x86 systems.
program p
implicit none
real(4) :: a1, e1 = 1.e-6
real(8) :: b1, e2 = 1.e-10
real(10) :: c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that the rotate isn't something created by the bswap pass, it isn't really
byteswap, just swapping of two halves of the long long.
It comes from expansion and combine. Expanding
_9 = (int) _3;
_10 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #96 from Richard Biener ---
The full testcase on trunk (g:95d94b52ea8478334fb92cca545f0bd904bd0034) at -O0
-g
now takes 9s to compile and uses 1GB ram.
With -O1 -g we have
Time variable usr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #97 from Richard Biener ---
So fixing that makes GCC 11 compile the full testcase at -O1 -g in 18 seconds
using about 1GB of memory.
That leaves PTA at -O2+ as the biggest offender (it also shows up with the
reduced testcase).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philippe.virouleau at imag dot
fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #98 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc886bf4279461b8931c4ca544185a85cd69f26
commit r11-7208-g6cc886bf4279461b8931c4ca544185a85cd69f26
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99045
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99045
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm,
Shouldn't that really just become a perm swapping the two halves?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is what happens on the trunk (the revision that introduced didn't do that
yet). But even that permutation is more expensive than the rotate,
rolq$32, (%rdi)
vs.
movq(%rdi), %xmm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98028
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, for
unsigned f1(unsigned i, unsigned j) {
if (j != i) __builtin_unreachable();
return i - j;
}
this is already optimized through:
if (vr->varying_p ()
&& (code == PLUS_EXPR || code == MINUS_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99043
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f699e0b16578cdc1be8b90691ef8b0964af32d2f
commit r11-7209-gf699e0b16578cdc1be8b90691ef8b0964af32d2f
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The slightly better code (i.e. just one load + permutation + store) started
with
r11-6649-g285fa338b06b804e72997c4d876ecf08a9c083af.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> While with SLP vectorization, we end up with:
>_9 = (int) _3;
>_10 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_3, 32, 32>;
> - MEM[(int &)&y] = _10;
> - MEM[(int &)&y + 4] = _9;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98931
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71b8ed7c61bc6f80df41f9aa3cf9eb57fb664e77
commit r11-7211-g71b8ed7c61bc6f80df41f9aa3cf9eb57fb664e77
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #99 from Richard Biener ---
Just a short brain-dump for the PTA issue:
--param max-fields-for-field-sensitive=1 helps, so some magic limit and
auto-degrading might be a good idea.
Solver stats are not so bad:
Total vars:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98028
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
I would expect in gcc 12 we'll be handling it differently than that.
I have equivalences/relations up and running and will eventually get to
applying those to general statements... which I haven't gotten to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99077
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4591f7e5329dcc6ee9af2f314a050936d470ab5b
commit r11-7212-g4591f7e5329dcc6ee9af2f314a050936d470ab5b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We don't create a copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-12
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Summary|[9/10/11 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98125
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think -fpatchable-function-entry support is more than 3 years old now, so I
think we can't treat it like a new feature and so I don't understand defering
fixing it for stage1. Doesn't the kernel use that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 97684, which changed state.
Bug 97684 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in reg_preferred_class, at reginfo.c:789
by r11-4577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97684
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7210405ed8eb5fd723b2c99960dcc5f0aec89b4
commit r11-7222-gb7210405ed8eb5fd723b2c99960dcc5f0aec89b4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0631e008adc759cc801d0d034224ee6b4bcf31aa
commit r11-7225-g0631e008adc759cc801d0d034224ee6b4bcf31aa
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99043
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f248468b309eba0608608c4d8bd75fd0f4580416
commit r10-9364-gf248468b309eba0608608c4d8bd75fd0f4580416
Author: Tobias Burnus
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99043
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99048
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99048
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99048
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96078
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 50174
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50174&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
Bug ID: 99079
Summary: Maybe a wrong code since r6-1462-g4ab1e111ef0669bb
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I forgot to mention:
$ g++ x.cpp -O && ./a.out
arr: 602669924
Aborted (core dumped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The code that kills the test process (close_wait_program in lib/remote.exp) has
indeed changed between DejaGNU 1.6.1 and 1.6.2. That said, I don't see any
reason why the 1.6.1 code wouldn't kill the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.suse.com/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] |[10/11 Regression]
|pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Brian Grayson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99055
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3d7fd1475eb1ed2b3a39f988b33db176d4f7419
commit r11-7226-gf3d7fd1475eb1ed2b3a39f988b33db176d4f7419
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99080
Bug ID: 99080
Summary: Add !TYPE_P assert to type_dependent_expression_p
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50175&action=edit
gcc11-pr99079.patch
Untested fix.
The problem is that the tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@3))
test act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50175|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, except we introduce UB into the program because (1 << var) - 1 when var is
31 will be INT_MIN - 1. I think we should do the subtraction of 1 in utype
then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99015
--- Comment #1 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
It seems clang at any optimization level can compile this. GCC at -O0 can also
compile it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50176|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5021162cf33081c128cd5c4f96ea0b7ca8739d7
commit r10-9365-gd5021162cf33081c128cd5c4f96ea0b7ca8739d7
Author: Steve Kargl
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Sandra: what is the status of your loop unification changes?
FWIW, I'm not able to reproduce this issue with trunk. Note that
g:fd111c419d146ee47c7df9a36a535e8d843d4802 fixed a state-explosion bug in how
sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99081
Bug ID: 99081
Summary: Misleading -Wmissing-field-initializers warning on
out-of-order designated initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> FWIW, I'm not able to reproduce this issue with trunk. Note that
> g:fd111c419d146ee47c7df9a36a535e8d843d4802 fixed a state-explosion bug in
> how switch stateme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99039
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f93e1b892850b00bf6b9cbc5711a7d5bc367967
commit r11-7228-g8f93e1b892850b00bf6b9cbc5711a7d5bc367967
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99040
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f93e1b892850b00bf6b9cbc5711a7d5bc367967
commit r11-7228-g8f93e1b892850b00bf6b9cbc5711a7d5bc367967
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99040
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c27fe96f812df76ca07272d3c68765bd1f9dc08
commit r11-7229-g0c27fe96f812df76ca07272d3c68765bd1f9dc08
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99039
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
8c4137c7ead 2021-02-12 | c++: Seed imported bindings [PR 99039]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99039
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99040
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99082
Bug ID: 99082
Summary: manual bit-field creation followed by manual
extraction does not always produce good code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98468
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
git tag -l 'releases*' --contains 8d2d39587d94
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99083
Bug ID: 99083
Summary: Big run-time regressions of 519.lbm_r with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99084
Bug ID: 99084
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/rtl/aarch64/multi-subreg-1.c
added in r11-7223 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Brian Grayson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
So, for the second example, the compiler's process is
test() initializes the tuple member
looks for tuple(Test) ctor
considers tuple(tuple&&)
looks for conversion from Test to tuple
considers _ImplicitCtor
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99085
Bug ID: 99085
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
multiple hot/cold transitions found)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
85 matches
Mail list logo
