|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, thanks for the hints - that's something I can work with more easily than an
Ada testcase ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I still wonder how it works with abstract functions, inline and concrete
instances. Works in gdb, that is - will dig into it a bit after lunch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Btw, I still wonder how it works with abstract functions, inline and
> concrete instances. Works in gdb, that is - will dig into it a bit after
> lunch.
So he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > Btw, I still wonder how it works with abstract functions, inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
It works again when re-adding the imports. info variables then shows
File t.c:
1: static const int i;
for the case of a single import. When I import twice (into two CUs) I
still see only one 'i' li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like ~20% for the first case so possibly worth investigating. I can very
well imagine we now less often run into some cut-offs and generate debug while
we gave up previously.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> 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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94497
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48213
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48213&action=edit
incomplete patch
In case anybody is interested to complete it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94497
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
As a workaround you can use -ffinite-math-only -fno-signed-zeros if that is
applicable to the rest of your application.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Note that when REALPART_EXPR/IMAGPART_EXPR or BIT_FIELD_REF was there using
a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR on their op0 should be OK. Since we then have
grp_partial_def SRA will ensure the replacement is not written
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
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=94506
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I still can't reproduce the issue so can you please test the following patch
ontop of GCC 9? It probably applies to GCC 8 as well. Thanks.
diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
index bd8bd6d7e06..f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at airs dot com
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: cmang at google dot com
Target Milestone: ---
> readelf -s buildid | grep GLIBC_PRIVATE
25: 0 F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94513
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I guess the proper solution is to invoke the syscalls directly rather than
going through the libc wrappers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|build |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I think your interpretation of PUs and CUs and using PUs for the early
DWARF and CUs for the late DWARF fits the LTO model "good enough" with the
caveat of losing info about things that are not in an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
OK, built a cross to x86_64-netbsd and I see we go from
Breakpoint 8, gimplify_addr_expr (expr_p=0x76cdec28, pre_p=0x7fffd8b0,
post_p=0x7fffcc40) at /space/rguenther/src/gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #18)
> Hmmm, it looks to me like things are going wrong in the tree fre1 pass too.
> I commented out the redundant zero store in the test case to see what would
> happen, l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48241&action=edit
patch for the DW_AT_declaration idea
So this is a patch implementing DW_AT_declaration + DW_AT_specification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
So for the CSE issue we go through the equivalence chain and find
(gdb) p debug_rtx (p->exp)
(mem/j:SI (reg/v/f:SI 48 [ ptr ]) [1 MEM[(struct aa *)ptr_1(D)].a.u.i+0 S4
A32])
5076 if (GET_CODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Version|tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92253, which changed state.
Bug 92253 Summary: [10 Regression] 25% regression in 465.tonto with LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92253
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #14)
> Another option, which does not create an inter-pass dependency and
> does not clutter tree-inline any more, but which pessimizes IPA-SRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] alias-4 |[10 regression]
|test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|10.0
||2020-04-09
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Might also be interesting to try other strict-align targets with -fno-ipa-sra.
But - this might also be a speciality of the callee-copy ABI of hpux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, this commit has caused other issues in the past that are meanwhile fixed
though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Target Milestone|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So for conv2 the most immediate issue is that we're failing to sink and common
the assignment to D.8516._M_value (I had patches for this).
conv2 (int i)
{
int i_2(D) = i;
struct strong_ordering D.8516;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #3 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94583
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Not all targets have a C99 math runtime. libgfortran configury tests for a
load
of C99 functions:
# Check for C99 (and other IEEE) math functions
GCC_CHECK_MATH_FUNC([acosf])
GCC_CHECK_MATH_FUNC([acos])
GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Means we should add the testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Note the unswitching pass has special code to hoist guards of inner loops
steming from loop header copying. That could possibly be enabled at -O2
since it doesn't come with a size penalty due to loop copyi
||2020-04-14
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm. I would have said phiopt but then there's the missing opportunity to
handle PHIs as COND_EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Priority|P3
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Like
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
index df9ba0de0d6..2850141303e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
@@ -831,6 +831,15 @@ same_type_for_tbaa (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Wonder if the simplest thing is to turn the zero_extract into a zero_extend
so we can maintain the and in SImode. And whether combine will ever
generate a zero_extract that extracts the SImode MSB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> I've pondered just killing that pattern, but I'm pretty sure there'll be
> notable regressions. There was a clear regression we fixed in gcc-6 due to
> not han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed on arm. The odd thing is that the optimized GIMPLE for foo() is
much nicer:
foo ()
{
[local count: 153437707]:
MEM[(volatile struct t0 *)655404B] ={v} a0[0];
MEM[(volatile struct t0 *)6554
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
We're going through
rtx
store_expr (tree exp, rtx target, int call_param_p,
bool nontemporal, bool reverse)
{
...
normal_expr:
/* If we want to use a nontemporal or a reverse order store
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Joseph, what's the constraints on an aggregate assignment through a volatile
qualified pointer using a type like
typedef struct {
unsigned int f0 : 4;
unsigned int f1 : 11;
unsigned i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So for example
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index b97c217e86d..a980811c1e9 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -8263,7 +8263,8 @@ expand_constructor (tree exp, rtx target, enum
expand_modifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94604
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Wouldn't it be better to git mv plural.y plural.y.in and depending on bison
> >= 3 or earlier just with sed tweak it (and in configure detect bison
> version, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> I think it's trying to use smaller modes because the encodings can be
> smaller. In other cases it changes the mode to avoid partial register
> stalls. It's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|11832, 33315|
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48279&action=edit
patch
Patch forward ported to current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94607
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly just -fprefetch-loop-arrays is required then (not really maintained,
not really used)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Created attachment 48279 [details]
> patch
>
> Patch forward ported to current trunk.
Surprisingly small fallout:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/split-path-7.c scan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
Compone
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, I remember a very similar report from the past, unable to reproduce on
SUSE packaged GCC. Can you attach the console output when you add -v
to the compiler command? Can you install debuginfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Why is it not correct to split the insn the way you describe? I see nothing
wrong with that - the use of r115 is still under r110 == 0. Is the issue
that r115 is re-used and r115 has more than a single use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
You might be able to turn this into a RTL testcase with a C driver to make it
suitable for a dg-do run testcase. There's a combine testcase at
gcc.dg/rtl/aarch64/asr_div1.c you could look at (just not dg-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
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=94614
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
#1 0x00cecacc in emit_move_multi_word (mode=E_TImode,
x=0x769f66c0, y=0x769f64e0)
at /space/rguenther/src/gcc/gcc/expr.c:3716
(gdb) p debug_rtx (x)
(subreg:TI (reg/v:DI 113 [ res ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> but lack the same check for the x parts. The following fixes it:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
> index b97c217e86d..dfbeae71518 100644
> --- a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
301 - 400 of 49442 matches
Mail list logo
