https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99371
Bug ID: 99371
Summary: add_options_for_sqrt_insn is missing options that
enable powerpc's fsqrt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99372
Bug ID: 99372
Summary: gimplefe-28.c ICEs when sqrt insn is not available
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99372
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I didn't mean that the testcase didn't check, I meant that the gimple parser
didn't check. It swallows the .SQRT call even though it the attempt to expand
the call will ICE because there's no usable opcode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
It is definitely a problem in the dg infrastructure that compile mode doesn't
work with additional sources, but fixing that seems quite involved, more than I
can tackle right now. I've tried to duplicate t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99371
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96078
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99363
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Summary|[11 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100228
Bug ID: 100228
Summary: repeated std::atomic::load() misoptimized by
x87 peephole
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 49427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49427&action=edit
patch that should fix the remaining s390 problem
So, the issue is already fixed on aarch64-*, powerpc*-*, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 49456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49456&action=edit
fix for riscv targets
> Still broken
Sorry, it's the first I hear of this problem on riscv.
The fix is targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97714
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93456
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97714
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Sorry it took me so long to react, I'd missed the question.
IIRC the scheduler was the hardest part of GCC to make work with debug insns.
The general strategy is that nondebug insns never depend on debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 54272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54272&action=edit
patch that fixes the problem for reasons not fully understood
It seems that looking up the MEM exprs in DEB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #20 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The bug is now either fixed or latent in the trunk, I'm not sure which, because
I have not got as far as figuring out why removing unnecessary address cselib
lookups in debug insns made a difference to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I'm not entirely sure what the point of testing for __clang__ is, really. Is
libstdc++ used with, or supposed to be used (say, as a system library) with
__clang__? If so, wouldn't it be useful if it actua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612198.html has a
simple-minded implementation, that should make it clear what I mean by scratch:
get() pays no regard to the incoming bits in tm, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105224
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104852
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
and then, as I reduced it myself down to the following and compared with the
minimized test, I've finally turned on both of my neurons ;-) and it finally
hit me: "only with -mv850e2v3" didn't mean "not wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103856
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104540
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103845
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 52518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52518&action=edit
Candidate patch
The problem is in undo_optional_reloads. Here's a fix I'm testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104564
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-24
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104564
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105161
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Debug binds in edges was something I considered for some time, but concluded it
would be unlikely to bring useful debug information: the confluence operator
for debug-bind-capable decls during var-tracking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105224
Bug ID: 105224
Summary: [modules] g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C: inline key
methods: c++ modules and arm aapcs clash
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105359
Bug ID: 105359
Summary: _Float128 expanders and builtins disabled on ppc
targets with 64-bit long double
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105267
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
HaoChen Gui posted a proposal for a narrower pattern here
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593389.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105359
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
pr82748-1.c is another victim of this issue. do_copysign_ld needs to convert
between (64-bit) long double and __ieee128 for __builtin_copysignq, and since
the expanders for these conversions are condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
sorry, I typoed the failing test. it's in g++.dg/ext, and it has a .C
extesion. how unfortunate that there was another test matching the lower-case
name I typoed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
on x86_64 with -fPIC or -fpic, my_guard's address is indeed loaded from the GOT
with @GOTPCREL indeed
on x86_64 with -fPIE or -fpie, however, it is used just as expected by the
testcase. which should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106898
Bug ID: 106898
Summary: ECF_NOTHROW for __cxa_deleted_virtual or not for
__cxa_pure_virtual
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104461
Bug ID: 104461
Summary: cody requires -fmodule-mapper hostname to have an IPv6
address
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104180
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I've recommended before that, without any plan to implement consumers for this
debug information, keeping it in place is mostly wasteful. AFAICT other debug
stmts issued by front-ends could hit the same i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103856
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103856
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 52458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52458&action=edit
candidate patch under test
Here's a proposed fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103845
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104540
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-17
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104540
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 52459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52459&action=edit
candidate patch under test
Here's a candidate fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103845
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104263
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103845
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Confirmed. The first patch there.
I will still prepare a patch with the testcase to avoid an independent
regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Do you still get this? I can't trigger the problem with the reduced testcase
with -O2 -g -mv850e2v3, on a cross to v850-rtems hosted on x86_64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
No luck, even with commit
./xgcc -B./ -O2 -g pr104121.c -mv850e2v3 -mno-app-regs -msmall-sld
-fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector
do I actually need binutils to enable something essential in GCC to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I mean, even with commit 50e8b0c9bca6cdc57804f860ec5311b641753fbb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Alexandr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Hi, Will, Jakub, Martin,
There's nothing particularly unusual about apparently empty ranges, especially
when views are enabled, since the very point of location views is to enable
multiple states to be d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 51837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51837&action=edit
candidate patch under test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103149
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103097
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100843
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100518
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Hello, Jim,
Thanks for the investigation, that's useful. I guess the register allocator
shouldn't choose to coalesce registers when there's a clobber afterwards, or it
should drop the clobber, since othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/585963.html appears to
no longer hit this error, though I've only inspected the asm output, not tried
to run it yet; can anyone confirm?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Andrew,
asm("":"=g"(tt):"g"(t));
asm("":"=g"(ii):"g"(i));
Make it "0" for the inputs:
asm("":"=g"(tt):"0"(t));
and AFAICT if you "detach" the immediate constant, you won't get the bug.
The probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
This will probably avoid the error. valid_insn_p checks the alternatives, and
fails for the invalid cmpdi_ccu that we attempt to create. Conceivably, this
could be avoided by narrowing down the condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Thanks, this alternate testcase confirms my suspicion that the original issue
was only going latent. It's clearly a preexisting register allocation issue on
riscv, that was latent and that -fharden-compar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103024
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103530
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103450
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103450
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103149
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 51947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51947&action=edit
candidate patch under testing
Could the fix be as simple as this?
The resulting code is awful, with such s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103097
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103530
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103024
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100843
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 51954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51954&action=edit
candidate patch under testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100518
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 51955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51955&action=edit
candidate patch under testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100843
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100518
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107304
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107873
Bug ID: 107873
Summary: C++ without SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105324
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105324
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Component|libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105455
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105455
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
