[Bug c++/95741] New: Optimization removes call to set_terminate in destructor

2020-06-18 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mpoulhies at kalray dot eu Target Milestone: --- The following code has different executions in O0 and O3. It looks like GCC is able to optimize the `throw s` in `test()` by calling `terminate

[Bug tree-optimization/67282] Wrong code with -floop-nest-optimize

2020-06-18 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67282 Marc POULHIÈS changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpoulhies at kalray dot eu --- Comment

[Bug c++/95741] Optimization skips destructor and calls terminate directly

2020-06-18 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95741 --- Comment #3 from Marc POULHIÈS --- Yes you are right, sorry. Mistake caused by previous change in the title...

[Bug c/92383] New: ICE: in refs_may_alias_p_1, at tree-ssa-alias.c:1519

2019-11-05 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mpoulhies at kalray dot eu Target Milestone: --- Giving this to all GCC on godbolt.org (9.2 to 4.1.2) : #include int main (int argc, char **argv) { struct S { char toto[argc]; }; int f (struct S arg

[Bug tree-optimization/91616] New: Incorrect data address computation in very simple code

2019-08-30 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mpoulhies at kalray dot eu Target Milestone: --- The following code is miscompiled in O2 only (0,1 and 3 are correct): typedef unsigned long long uint64_t; uint64_t data_array[16] = {0}; unsigned

[Bug tree-optimization/91616] Incorrect data address computation in very simple code

2019-09-02 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91616 --- Comment #3 from Marc POULHIÈS --- Ok, sorry for the incorrect report. The problem was found in our port of GCC where the code actually really accesses an incorrect memory location and seeing this very large offset added to data array lead me

[Bug middle-end/89328] New: static chain made mandatory

2019-02-13 Thread mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mpoulhies at kalray dot eu Target Milestone: --- Since r217769, a target without support for static chain will not work. Previous this change, the message ``` nested functions not supported on this target ``` was displayed only when