https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in spec_qsort?
I wonder if you can re-measure with our patching undone but then with
-fno-strict-aliasing (though I think that only was require
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94369
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The profile looks unconclusive, the # samples differ but evenly increase. The
overall number of samples is missing - does that increase by 6-7%?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94373
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the cited commit simply caused more complete unrolling to happen. Too
much actually which is why I reverted it. Note GCC 9.2 does not have that more
unrolling so the difference must be something else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94387
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
volatile semantics on misaligned fields and strict-align targets cannot be
honored. I suggest you add appropriate __attribute__((aligned(..))) if you
know the whole structure is aligned and just want fields
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Infinite loops do not make much sense so the consensus was to enable it
everywhere by default (also for non-C/C++ languages).
Joseph, any opinion whether we should make the default language (standard)
dependent? It'll be tracke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
at suse dot de |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
But the ICE happens because the result from the function at transform time does
not match that at analysis time.
Richard?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94402
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It only fails on systems with the libmvec enablement and vectorizes one more
loop. Not sure how to "fix" the testcase (split out the offending function,
add some dg-target looking for libmvec enablement?)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, we're invoking memset from libc which might use a different path on
CXL compared to Zen2?
Note that a vectorized epilogue should in no way cause additional
store-to-load forwarding penalties _but_ it m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 94407 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 94416, which changed state.
Bug 94416 Summary: passing a restricted pointer to a function can be assumed
not to modify an accessed object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94416
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
in expand_vec_cond_expr_p there is
if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (cmp_op_type)
&& get_vcond_mask_icode (TYPE_MODE (value_type),
TYPE_MODE (cmp_op_type)) != CODE_FOR_nothin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Comment on attachment 48151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48151
gcc10-pr94423.patch
If one replaces a SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI def with another SSA name
one has to set SSA_NAME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and yes, you cannot replace a SSA use in a PHI on an abnormal edge with
an invariant because you have no where to insert the copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94427
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The hot/cold thing smells like PR90911 btw.
The cmov thing you identified is PR91154 which was fixed for archs that can
do the required SSE min/max operation which is SSE 4.1 IIRC.
It also is then a "dupli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 42633, which changed state.
Bug 42633 Summary: hinting gcc that restricted pointer dont alias with members
of structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42633
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94425
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Well, there's no dependence visible to the compiler between the control word
stores and loads so it's obvious the asms cannot be pure. Is 'asm' a D
feature or a GCC extension? How does D model dependences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
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=94340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91626
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
mpc_tan (m, m, 0)
with
(gdb) p *m
$14 = {re = {{_mpfr_prec = 24, _mpfr_sign = 1, _mpfr_exp = 14,
_mpfr_d = 0x3713c48}}, im = {{_mpfr_prec = 24, _mpfr_sign = 1,
_mpfr_exp = 14, _mpfr_d = 0x3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note the access attribute is only for diagnostics, not for optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in
> > spec_qsort?
>
> Yes
>
> > I wonder if y
||lto
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I guess the more correct DWARF would be to have the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I386 ABI: How to determine |I386 ABI: How to determine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the current situation is similar to that of
static inline int foo(int i)
{
static int j;
j = i + 1;
return j;
}
int bar(int i)
{
return foo(i);
}
int baz(int i)
{
return foo(i);
}
here we ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So the current situation is similar to that of
Modifying the testcase to C99
inline int foo(int i)
{
static int j;
j = i + 1;
return j;
}
int bar(int i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48168
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48168&action=edit
patch to drop DW_TAG_imported_unit DIEs
I'm testing this patch. Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So let's try to address this in cfgloop.c - we're likely facing the situation
of
header:
...
if (...) goto latch1;
latch2:
goto header;
latch1: // in cold section
goto header;
where latch disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Pilot error.
loop->header is in the cold partition, both latch sources are as well,
the loop entry source is in the hot partition. We're correctly
redirecting that from hot -> cold to hot -> cold state so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Makes me wonder if hot/cold splitting should use a special jump instruction
for crossing jumps which we could fixup/split very late so we see
(parallel
(set reg (label_ref ..))
(set pc (reg))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The DW_TAG_imported_unit are now gone for GCC 10. So can we consider this
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
The offending commit eventually changed when/how many times
disable_insertion_hook () is called. So that maybe points to the real cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> The offending commit eventually changed when/how many times
> disable_insertion_hook () is called. So that maybe points to the real cause.
Eventually that j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #6)
> First, I want here to mention that Richard have recently discussed
> partitioning in mailing list with Segher, starting from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
And for the moment we could declare !HAS_LONG_UNCOND_BRANCH as unsupported for
partitioning. The list of unconditionally supported targets then is
just cr16, ft32, i386, m32c, moxie and pru. aarch64 suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note using __builtin_ia32_* directly is discouraged. A testcase using official
intrinsics would be better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #1 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
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=94467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to Evan Nemerson from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 48204 [details]
> > Reduced test case, ASan/UBSan clean
> >
> > Here is the reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Can you try if not using PCH fixes the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
OK, now looking myself. RTL expansion creates
(insn 8 7 9 2 (set (mem/j:SI (reg/v/f:SI 47 [ bv ]) [1 bv_3(D)->b.u.f+0 S4
A32])
(reg:SI 49)) "t.c":12:13 -1
(nil))
(insn 9 8 10 2 (set (mem/j:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
x86 splits large stores only after reload it seems. Also on x86 GIMPLE
store-merging triggers, merging the two = 0 stores so I need -fno-store-merging
to
even get two stores there. Still the issue in CSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
This:
if (write)
{
gassign *stmt;
if (access->grp_partial_lhs)
ref = force_gimple_operand_gsi (gsi, ref, true, NULL_TREE,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> This:
>
> if (write)
> {
> gassign *stmt;
>
> if (access->grp_partial_lhs)
> ref = force_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
gcc.dg/torture/pr52244.c ICEs on the generated
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(u) = bar ();
since V_C_E on the LHS are generally unwanted (but Ada has them for aggregates
just not in outermost position). What's alwa
201 - 300 of 49442 matches
Mail list logo
