https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|Severe re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-27
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48381&action=edit
more complex approach, POC
Another testcase, this time for store ordering (IIRC we may have a duplicate
for
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94796
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
LGTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94813
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> > My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily.
> > I'll be re-measuring everything on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94820
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94780
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] ICE in |[8/9/10 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94828
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Loop fusion is not |Loop fusion is not
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94836
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=94838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |pch
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94853
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue was likely latent before the cited rev. - for this reason and because
the testcase needs -fgnu-tm which is not maintained _not_ P1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94857
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94863
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
throughputs put aside - how's port allocation and latency figures? That said,
GCC usually sides on the smaller insn encoding variant when latency isn't
different - we're usually not looking at throughput si
||2020-04-30
Component|target |rtl-optimization
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
||uros at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] ICE: in |[9/10 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94836
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so it's not that easy to do. Consider
int f(int x)
{
static int s;
if (!s)
s = x;
return s;
}
which we cannot optimize in this way. VN would need to work in a way
assigning the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94868
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
Eww. Fixing the missed optimization causes tons of maybe-uninit warnings.
That was probably to be expected since we're introducing undefs on the loop
entry edge and conditional uses. We eventually should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48420
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48420&action=edit
patch
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, queued for GCC 11. Note it does not
(and cannot) fix the case for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48381|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Functional cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] internal|internal compiler error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0, 4.8.1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|ICE: Segmentati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94908
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94909
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
how's a%dot_(b) not a recursion? (not exactly understanding what that deferred
thing is ...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94915
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94925
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The code printing this diagnostic is guarded with
if (gfc_option.rtcheck & GFC_RTCHECK_ARRAY_TEMPS)
{
char * msg;
if (fsym && proc_name)
msg = xasprintf ("An a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94939
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Keywords|rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Feel free to backport, it certainly doesn't have high priority.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Not yet fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Richard Bi
|--- |8.5
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. It's a little tricky but I think it boils down to
extern void abort ();
extern void baz ();
extern void (*baz_call)();
static i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In fact this situation doesn't seem to be handled at all - global variables
are still an afterthought in IPA-PTA it seems. Needs more work than a simple
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I guess with -Ofast (-fallow-store-data-races!) we cannot do the
optimization of eliding the loads.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c
index 18e5c18c17e..554dd4be5bb 100644
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94949, which changed state.
Bug 94949 Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code for couple of SPEC benchmarks
since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> In fact this situation doesn't seem to be handled at all - global variables
> are still an afterthought in IPA-PTA it seems. Needs more work than a
> simple fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think array_at_struct_end_p conservatively returns true for p->a[i] though.
Indeed all calls to the function return the correct value. So is it somebody
invented a "more clever" variant of said check? Or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Summary|[10/11 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Plenty of dups for this in bugzilla - but FE folks never get that idea of using
a loop ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
501 - 600 of 49442 matches
Mail list logo