https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> I think it's this TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (REG_EXPR (op1))).
That's not reliable. Mutliplication shouldn't care about sign?
|--- |10.2
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is in the scatter store the mask is vectorized with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #29)
> So I think this sort of equivalent example in C shows what's going wrong in
> the C++ example. https://godbolt.org/z/ZMz4Cp
>
> gcc knows that if the object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #3 from Ri
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the issue is we're getting these MEM_ATTRs when expanding the base
as
(mem/c:V4SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 77 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int -32 [0xffe0])) [5 MEM[(struct ._a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Now, the real issue is of course that we fail to properly expand the inner
MEM_REF since get_inner_reference strips that away and so we expand the
decl resulting in bogus mem_attrs being applied. That is, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
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=95492
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note we're also doing IPA-CP cloning and apply the same recursive inlining
there.
|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Component|c |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
We also fail to unswitch the outer loop on if (d) (probably simply because we
don't unswitch outer loops). It's likely the invariantness of the condition
that makes the problem. We're vectorizing
[loca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||patch
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95529
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> (In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #2)
> > If using `-mbmi`, shouldn't GCC be able to assume the target is, in fact, a
> > BMI-capable CPU ? I understand tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
||ice-on-valid-code,
||needs-bisection
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95538
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #33)
> Those are all perfectly good arguments, but the problem ended up not having
> anything to do with std::launder or new implicit object creation rules or
> anyt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |needs-reduction
--- Comment #2 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
ypedef unsigned short uint16_t;
typedef short __v8hi __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
typedef long long __m128i __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16),
__may_alias__));
extern __inline __m128i __attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|VLA ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95569
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Please post patches to gcc-patches at gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95570
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Just spread the tests. Actual test coverage for all cases would be nice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So Ada does
/* In Ada, we use an unsigned 8-bit type for the default boolean type. */
boolean_type_node = make_unsigned_type (8);
TREE_SET_CODE (boolean_type_node, BOOLEAN_TYPE);
but somehow in lto1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It's also odd vectorization.
t.c:14:3: note: Detected interleaving store this_3(D)->D.2378._vptr.S and
_1->_vptr.S
t.c:14:3: note: Queuing group with duplicate access for fixup
t.c:14:3: missed: not c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
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=95638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Summary|Legit-looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The first one is EXTRACT_LAST_REDUCTION where the ICE is fixed with the
following
which looks like a simple omission in the causing patch.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
index cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I cannot reproduce the arm failure, neon-fp1 doesn't seem to exist and any
combo of -mcpu=cortex-a9 and -mfpu=... does not ICE for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Version|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Version|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #35)
> I agree that the new implicit object creation rules sound very difficult to
> implement correctly especially because the behavior in C is different. I'm
> cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to liusujian from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > It's more likely the GENERIC / cgraph output by the C++ frontend is not
> > correct
> > and works by accident withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #5 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95678
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why CSE2 (after loop) does not catch the redundancies at least. Hmm,
guess EBB is too local? But then there's gcse2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|9.3.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690
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=95693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p t
$1 =
(gdb) p debug_generic_expr (t)
((erfc))
so that's the DECL_INITIAL of a CONST_DECL. The CONST_DECL is built that
way by the FE:
8833 /* Create a temporary var to hold the value. */
8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||95493
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
Bug 95493 depends on bug 95690, which changed state.
Bug 95690 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at
emit-rtl.c:2092
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95696
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Please send patches to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I'm inclined to close as WONTFIX or INVALID. There are several other PRs which
show "surprising" behavior with respect to __builtin_constant_p and jump
threading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95708
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Why on earth does it show the error on line 6 on powerpc?!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*|x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95694
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Looks really similar to PR95528.
Sorry - wrong bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I'll have a look. There's a missed optimization but that causes the SSA update
mechanism in the vectorizer to go out-of-sync somehow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The bogus def is set via
if (scalar_loop != loop)
{
/* If we copied from SCALAR_LOOP rather than LOOP, SSA_NAMEs from
SCALAR_LOOP will have current_def set to SSA_NAMEs in the new_loop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE|[9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the testcase does not ICE so ice-on-invalid is wrong. It's really
a diagnostic only. If we want sth extra to distinguish error diagnostics
from warning diagnostics then we should add one (can't come u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95729
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
901 - 1000 of 49442 matches
Mail list logo
