https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #20 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Created attachment 52114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52114&action=edit
testcases
With these test cases, invoke 'foo' in these cases 1000,000,000 times, to see
the runtime:
building 'co
8-g05da96886ef-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103868
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52116&action=edit
Partially reduced test-case
The test-case fails with the following on master:
$ ./xgcc -B. /tmp/x.ii -c -std=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103868
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|
|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #80 from Martin Liška ---
I've got access to a bdver2 machine, so I should be able to reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Bug ID: 103901
Summary: A lambda with a new type in its body cannot be defined
inside template parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103898
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103629
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82968
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, could you kindly test the patch attached, and let me know if it fixes
> gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_6.f90? Does it introduce any other failure?
The SPARC64/Linux machine of the Compile Farm apparently has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103639
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[11/12 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103860
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:801b2c880c8079934ac186ea1c31f3bf4af5aef3
commit r12-6202-g801b2c880c8079934ac186ea1c31f3bf4af5aef3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103544
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a15451da14410bf2bd6ec8f5baba1014638c67a
commit r12-6203-g1a15451da14410bf2bd6ec8f5baba1014638c67a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103864
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a15451da14410bf2bd6ec8f5baba1014638c67a
commit r12-6203-g1a15451da14410bf2bd6ec8f5baba1014638c67a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[11/12 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103647
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
fab is a bit late for this part of memcmp folding I guess, I'd have expected
that to happen in generic folding like when we inline memcpy. It seems it's
actually the strlen pass that inlines the compare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
Bug ID: 103902
Summary: Only the addition space between string-literal and
identifier in a literal-operator-id will be accepted
by GCC where the identifier is not in a basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|TBAA problem in Fortran FE |[12 Regression] TBAA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103665
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we can simply use
__builtin_trap[_mem] (&MEM[(union tree_node *)0B].base.code);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
GNU C17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) [master
r12-6200-g62c8b21d48a] (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
Maybe the fix for PR 103895 fixed this one also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
>
> GNU C17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) [master
> r12-6200-g62c8b21d48a] (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
gcc version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-c' '-O' '-fno-tree-dce' '-fno-tree-dse' '-save-temps'
'-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64'
/home/marxin/bin/gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
And for CFG cleanup there's no profile updating done when passes leave CFG
update to it by simplifying conditions to if (0) or if (1). One could argue
that
"late" simplifications simply make the guessed pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
-m[no-]fold-gimple is also a very badly named user option since it suggests
that 'fold' and 'gimple' are terms known to programmers. I'm just guessing
it was added to avoid "inlining" intrinsics as GIMPLE,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> No, it still crashes with the current master (g:fbb592407c9):
Ah, the compiler is blindly trying to generate V2QI XOR due to missing
one_cmplv2qi2 pattern. I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is an internal (debugging) option. It isn't documented in the manual, but
indeed it is not marked as Undocumented in rs6000.opt .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose we could just do:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/variant
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/variant
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ namespace std _GLIBCXX_VISIBILITY(default)
{
_GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103692
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #81 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 52118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52118&action=edit
preprocessed source code
Bug seems to have moved to unwind-dw2.c. Preprocessed source code attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
e/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results.20220104/x86_64-pc-linux-
gnu/bin/ -B/home/dcb/gcc/results.20220104/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20220104/x86_64
-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20220104/x86_64-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|zero extend not moved out |zero extend not sunk out of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebc853deb7cc0487de9ef6e891a007ba853d1933
commit r12-6208-gebc853deb7cc0487de9ef6e891a007ba853d1933
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> To me it looks like the PR52329 change wasn't correct. In particular, it
> should have been using true as the second argument and not false and
> therefore sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, will test that change.
The FE should be probably also fixed to drop such initializers, there is no
point to have initializers for empty arrays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103815
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103837
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #83 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #84 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks David for help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103850
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note the issue can be reproduced without -ffast-math as well where the
functions are nearly identical so I fear you are running into some
micro-architectural hazard. Maybe
.L3:
vmovapd %ymm2, %ym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103861
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Not fully fixed I guess?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103875
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The clobber is gone at the point we inline pop(), CDDCE1 removes it because
the clobbered address computation is dead.
Eliminating unnecessary statements:
Deleting : *_4 ={v} {CLOBBER};
Deleting : _4 = &t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103850
--- Comment #6 from Martin Reinecke ---
I would have expected that this does not make a significant difference,
assuming that speculative execution works and the branch predictor takes the
jump backwards at the loop's end. In that picture both v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103879
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced C++14 rejects-valid testcase:
struct A {
int n = 42;
};
struct B : A { };
struct C {
B b;
};
constexpr int f() {
C c;
A& a = static_cast(c.b);
B& b = static_cast(a);
return b.n;
}
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103861
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Not fully fixed I guess?
Not yet. I have a bunch of follow-up patches for various operations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Fran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45227
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
I think it was the method from the info file.
But I can't quite remember. If you cannot reproduce it I guess it's ok to
close. Maybe I made some mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Target Milestone|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103890
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So in this case we have an SLP tree for a merge PHI with scalar bools where
we do
t.c:10:12: note: using boolean precision 32 for iftmp.1_168 = pretmp_175 !=
0;
t.c:10:12: note: using boolean precision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103830
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> I think the recent modref change made the function const.
>
> And no, we shouldn't DSE any volatile store and generally we don't. It's
> probably some side-effect of modref that we do. U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Bug ID: 103903
Summary: Loops handling r,g,b values are not vectorized to use
power of 2 vectors even if they can
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
Bug ID: 103904
Summary: [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
--- Comment #7 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Understood, I'll work on it then, thanks for your help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Looks like the change causes the simpler conditional to be detected by the
vectorizer as a masked operation, which in principle makes sense:
note: vect_recog_mask_conversion_pattern: detected: iftmp.0_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Other options perhaps could be - (__x._M_node ? 1 : 0)
That produces worse code (with a jump) at -O1
> or - 1 + !__x._M_node
Isn't that undefined for (x - y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's a breaking change though, meaning that code that compiles now would not
compile after the backport. We generally avoid such things on the stable
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #0)
> Since this change is quite significant
That is the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The relevant commit is r12-1606-g4b4f5666b4c2f3aab2a9f3d53d394e390b9b682d
I'm not entirely opposed to backporting it, but we should decide carefully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88e861655b3e59bc982ba22cd6e2e7348efae866
commit r12-6211-g88e861655b3e59bc982ba22cd6e2e7348efae866
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 103800, which changed state.
Bug 103800 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in vectorizable_phi, at
tree-vect-loop.c:7861 with -O3 since r12-5626-g0194d92c35ca8b3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Well... we also try to avoid breaking changes in the standard ^^
The thing is that code that relies on the old definition will break one way or
another (and independent of compiler flags). The longer GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> We get (T*)0 - 1 + 1 which overflows twice.
GCC's ubsan doesn't diagnose this, but Clang's does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > or - 1 + !__x._M_node
>
> Isn't that undefined for (x - y - 1 + !x) if x and y are both null?
> We get (T*)0 - 1 + 1 which overflows twice.
You're right, i
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
