https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94036
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Just to quote configury used:
../configure --prefix=/usr --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man
--libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,ada,go --disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Small C testcase for one of the patterns we miss to optimize/vectorize:
void foo (char * __restrict src, short * __restrict dest)
{
union {
__int128_t i;
char v[16];
} u;
__builtin_memcpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|internal compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > The
> > setge %sil
> > movzbl %sil, %esi
> > to
> > xorl%esi, %esi
> > setge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> The
> setge %sil
> movzbl %sil, %esi
> to
> xorl%esi, %esi
> setge %sil
> transformation is something GCC does too with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > > > The
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
You can also run big-endian kvm guests on a little-endian host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94059
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94071
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Bug tracking missed cases, both passes could/should be merged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
With profile feedback we (target or middle-end) can produce specialized
RTL expansion doing small copies inline and larget ones offline. The
idea of GIMPLE level pattern detection is that even for small siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94093
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||2.95.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.6, 4.0.0
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94093
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|2.95.2 |
Known to work|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading#How_to_try_offloading_enabled_GCC
has documentation how to enable offloading for nvtpx, intel-mic and hsa but
lacks any information on amdgcn
||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
There's a related bug about x87 stores not storing all bytes which was closed
as IN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-10
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Wrong optimization: decimal |Wrong constant folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-10
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-11
Known to work||6.5.0
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94130
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Doing
memset(&s_myvalue, 0, sizeof(s_myvalue));
s_myreq.m_data = &s_myvalue;
also works around the issue. Odd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94132
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So I tried it with the SUSE GCC 10 packages and it works fine (I've
double-checked nvptx is offloaded). But my packages are only configured for
zlib ...
(I'm testing on Leap 15.1 which doesn't have zstd I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, your backtrace ends up in lto_uncompression_zlib but Matthias shows the
Ubuntu packages have zstd enabled. I'd have expected only zstd compressed
sections there. Matthias, can you reproduce the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94143
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So what prevents GIMPLE from doing the transform to an indirect call and
hoisting the call address computation out of the loop? I fear your volatile
marking is
papering over an entirely different issue. Of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94146
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If not already marked clearly as an ICF created thunk, I'd say it should be
> and then inliner should take it into account (and only inline if the
> function bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94150
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
struct _X { ~_X(); };
_X::~X () {}
produces
t.C:2:8: error: expected class-name before ‘(’ token
_X::~X () {}
^
where clang says
t.C:2:6: error: expected the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > OTOH CSEing the load from the PLT once it is resolved _would_ be an
> > optimization.
>
> Possibly. Sometimes mak
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Priority|P3 |P2
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-13
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Likely - mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94163
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
From
/* There's no CCP pass after PRE which would re-compute alignment
information so make sure we re-materialize this here. */
if (gimple_call_builtin_p (call, BUILT_IN_AS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94163
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The patch in testing does the same as CCP. I agree that we possibly want
saturation behavior but that can be done separately for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|[Regression 10]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-16
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94179
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 48036 [details]
> gcc10-pr94179.patch
>
> Untested fix.
> And/or we could limit the match.pd optimization to GIMPLE only, as at least
> the C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68785
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #14)
> Interestingly, I ran the code in comment 8 through a valgrind version
> of recent gcc trunk, with the compiler flag -O2, and got this:
>
> ./gcc.dg/pr68785.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] wrong |[9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48043
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48043&action=edit
patch in testing
This is what I have now, bootstrapped OK after the extra two hunks but I still
see ICEs durin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #11)
> Cross-referencing PR gdb/25684 - "gdb testing with gcc -flto" (
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25684 ).
>
> Ideally there would be a way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #11)
> > > Cross-referencing PR gdb/25684 - "gdb testing with gcc -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> F.i., an open question for me is the following: I'm now using
> -flto-partition=none for testing, but maybe 1to1 should yield better results?
I guess it better
||2020-03-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to fail||4.8.5
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Broken since long via memset folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
|10.0
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target||aarch64
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94212
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dmitrij Pochepko from comment #6)
> Just checked: non-vectorized assembly for aarch64 (O2) is using fmadd and
> fmsub intensively.
Try with -ffp-contract=off then. Note due to effective unroll
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94216
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> --- gcc/fold-const.c.jj 2020-03-18 12:47:36.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/fold-const.c 2020-03-18 17:34:14.586455801 +0100
> @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
WRF initial_config has very very very many (nested) loops to initialize
globals.
IIRC there's a related bug running into the very same issue when prefetching
is enabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48061&action=edit
cache base term
I wonder if we could simply cache the base terms in elt_loc_list? Does that
make a differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Note also that param_max_find_base_term_values limits recursion depth but not
width (the loc list traversals). The original visited_vals thing was to
prevent infinite recursion only. If the global caching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> I think caching is problematic, for a couple of reasons:
> 1) for non-cselib_preserved_value_p, the loc list is dynamic and keeps
> changing, locs are added an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48063
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48063&action=edit
more localized caching
Like this. Martin, can you also check the effect on this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> Created attachment 48063 [details]
> more localized caching
>
> Like this. Martin, can you also check the effect on this one?
We can actually simplify sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48063|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> > > Created attachment 48063 [details]
> > > more localized ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94226
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is most likely get_origin_and_offset which looks at the pointer
argument pointed-to-type:
tree xtype = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (x));
/* The byte offset of the most basic struct m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #5 from
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
lhd_set_decl_assembler_name seems to only do this for local decls though
so it shouldn't matter for actual generated code but is just a
compare-debug artifact? If it matters for code-generation then yes,
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 49442 matches
Mail list logo
