[Bug target/94087] std::random_device often fails when used from multiple threads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 May 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 > > --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely --- > (In reply to Jonathan

[Bug target/94087] std::random_device often fails when used from multiple threads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 May 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 > > --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from

[Bug target/94087] std::random_device often fails when used from multiple threads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 May 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 > > --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely --- > If you mean the mersenne tw

[Bug target/92658] x86 lacks vector extend / truncate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 May 2020, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658 > > --- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak --- > The patch is ready to be p

[Bug tree-optimization/94969] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Invalid loop distribution since r8-2390-gdfbddbeb1ca912c9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 18 May 2020, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969 > > --- Comment #10 from bin cheng --- > Hi，should I backport this an

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 20 May 2020, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 > > Uroš Bizjak changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/95199] Remove extra variable created for memory reference in loop vectorization.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199 > > --- Comment #4 from Kaipeng Zhou --- > Sorry for not expres

[Bug c++/95264] Infinite Loop When Compiling Templated C++ code at -O1 and above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 22 May 2020, freddie at witherden dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264 > > --- Comment #6 from Freddie Witherden --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 May 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- > Using > > a

[Bug tree-optimization/95295] g++ produces incorrect code with -O3 for loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 May 2020, vsevolod.livinskij at frtk dot ru wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295 > > --- Comment #6 from Vsevolod Livinskiy --- > Thank you for

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 29 May 2020, ed at catmur dot uk wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #12 from Ed Catmur --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/88398] vectorization failure for a small loop to do byte comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398 --- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398 > > --- Comment #36 from Jiu Fu Guo --- > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek

[Bug target/95237] LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT shrinks alignment, FAIL gcc.target/i386/pr69454-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 > > --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to Kito Cheng fro

[Bug target/95237] LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT shrinks alignment, FAIL gcc.target/i386/pr69454-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 > > --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de fro

[Bug target/95237] LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT shrinks alignment, FAIL gcc.target/i386/pr69454-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 > > --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #23 from Andrew Downing --- > But gcc already can i

[Bug target/95237] LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT shrinks alignment, FAIL gcc.target/i386/pr69454-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 2, 2020 6:55:21 PM GMT+02:00, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237 > >--- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey --- >Created atta

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 2, 2020 6:34:12 PM GMT+02:00, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > >--- Comment #25 from Andrew Downing --- >Do you

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, david.bolvansky at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 > > --- Comment #16 from Dávid Bolvanský --- > For -O3 it is okay,

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #31 from Andrew Downing --- > What would you say is

[Bug target/95526] [11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code accessing complex number from varargs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 4, 2020 4:42:53 PM GMT+02:00, "acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526 > >--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan --- >Ok, bo

[Bug bootstrap/95582] [11 Regression] LTO lean + PGO bootstrap is broken in Ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582 > > --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > Well, the middle-

[Bug tree-optimization/95627] [11 Regression] ICE in rs6000_density_test at rs6000.c:4992 since r11-1181-g371cc683371bedb0e53ebcee0c0e89604a1e74b1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 10, 2020 9:54:39 PM GMT+02:00, "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627 > >Bug ID: 95627 > Summar

[Bug tree-optimization/95633] [11 regression] ICEs since r11-1143-gb05d5563f4be13b4a0d0951375a82adf483973c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On June 12, 2020 3:28:16 PM GMT+02:00, "clyon at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633 > >--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon --- &g

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 > > --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- > Or to be more clear: >

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 > > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- > So yes, the static_cast should

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #38 from Andrew Downing --- > > int *p; >

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #37 from Richard Smith > --- > (In r

[Bug testsuite/95706] New test case gfortran.dg/pr95690.f90 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 17 Jun 2020, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706 > > --- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer --- > No idea, sorry. Is that

[Bug target/95762] Failure to optimize __builtin_convertvector from vector of 16 chars to vector of 16 shorts in a single instruction on AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762 > > --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- > And I should note, because o

[Bug middle-end/95830] [11 regression][MIPS/MSA] internal compiler error: in do_store_flag, at expr.c:12247 start with gcc-11-1445-g502d63b6d61

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830 > > --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- > Thanks for reduction, I can

[Bug fortran/53957] Polyhedron 11 benchmark: MP_PROP_DESIGN twice as long as other compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, prop_design at protonmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957 > > --- Comment #22 from Anthony --- > (In reply to Thomas

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 > > --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > (In r

[Bug inline-asm/96081] changed placement of file scope asm() contents

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96081 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 7 Jul 2020, jbeulich at suse dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96081 > > --- Comment #2 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- > I wasn't e

[Bug target/96128] [11 Regression] ICE in do_store_flag, at expr.c:12247 since r11-1445-g502d63b6d6141597bb18fd23c87736a1b384cf8f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128 > > --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug c++/96197] Excess memory consumption, positive correlation with the size of a constexpr array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, hyena at hyena dot net.ee wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197 > > --- Comment #2 from Erich Erstu --- > Richard Biener, you were right.

[Bug target/96189] Failure to use eflags from cmpxchg on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96189 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 16, 2020 9:05:52 AM GMT+02:00, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96189 > >Uroš Bizjak changed: > > W

[Bug bootstrap/96203] [11 Regression] LTO bootstrap with --enable-cet is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203 > > --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug c++/96354] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:4903 since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On July 28, 2020 4:45:59 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 > >--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- >So we

[Bug c++/96354] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:4903 since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug debug/96354] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:4903 since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > We have indeed: > # D

[Bug debug/96354] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:4903 since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 > > --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- > But we need to do the regi

[Bug debug/96354] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:4903 since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96354 > > --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- > But doing that would mean pre

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information missing missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug lto/96385] GCC generates separate debug info with undefined symbols without relocations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385 > > H.J. Lu changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug lto/96385] GCC generates separate debug info with undefined symbols without relocations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385 > > --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Thu, 30 Jul 202

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Unless we want for C

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- > lang_hooks.finalize_earl

[Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information missing from GCC compiled C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383 > > --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I guess one question is w

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #62 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, tavianator at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 > > Tavian Barnes changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/96451] [11 Regression] gcc.dg/pr68766.c ICE since r11-2453

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451 > > --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug tree-optimization/96451] [11 Regression] gcc.dg/pr68766.c ICE since r11-2453

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451 > > --- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin --- > Created attachment 49000 &

[Bug target/96373] SVE miscompilation on vectorized division loop, leading to FP exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 > > --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > FWIW, I t

[Bug target/96373] SVE miscompilation on vectorized division loop, leading to FP exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 > > --- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > (In

[Bug tree-optimization/96722] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Clobbers on NULL since r8-1519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96722 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96722 > > --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 49111 &

[Bug tree-optimization/96565] Failure to optimize out VLA even though it is left unused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96565 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96565 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Wouldn't many spots in

[Bug bootstrap/96794] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto-lean with --enable-link-mutex leads to poor LTRANS utilization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96794 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96794 > > --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

[Bug bootstrap/96794] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto-lean with --enable-link-mutex leads to poor LTRANS utilization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96794 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96794 > > --- Comment #11 from Michael Matz --- > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from

[Bug tree-optimization/96466] [11 Regression] ICE: in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:122 with -Og -finline-functions-called-once -fno-tree-ccp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466 > > --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- > Looking at the ICE, we actuall

[Bug tree-optimization/96466] [11 Regression] ICE: in gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr, at gimple-isel.cc:122 with -Og -finline-functions-called-once -fno-tree-ccp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466 > > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- > > As said you have to fak

[Bug target/96854] [10 Regression] avx vectorizer breaks complex arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 6 Sep 2020, already5chosen at yahoo dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854 > > --- Comment #15 from Michael_S --- > Thank you. > That doe

[Bug debug/93865] .debug_line with LTO refers to bogus file-names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93865 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93865 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/97013] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr80695-p8.c fails after r11-3095

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97013 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 10, 2020 9:50:51 PM GMT+02:00, "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97013 > >--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---

[Bug target/96789] x264: sub4x4_dct() improves when vectorization is disabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 > > --- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin --- > > 2) on Power, the conversio

[Bug target/96789] x264: sub4x4_dct() improves when vectorization is disabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789 > > --- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 > > --- Comment #13 from ? ? --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/40770] Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 22, 2020 1:14:48 PM GMT+02:00, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770 > >--- Comment #23 from 康 珊 --- >It seems t

[Bug debug/90231] ivopts causes iterator in the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231 > > --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Sure, the debug stmts should

[Bug testsuite/92126] gcc.dg/vect/pr62171.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126 > > --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- > Should we close this? I fo

[Bug debug/91929] missing inline subroutine information in build using sin/cos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, dimhen at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929 > > Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/92039] [10 Regression] Spurious -Warray-bounds warnings building 32-bit glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92039 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92039 > > Martin Liška changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/65930] Reduction with sign-change not handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930 > > --- Comment #22 from Tamar Christina --- > It also causes failure

[Bug c/92249] ICE in c_parser_gimple_compound_statement w/ GIMPLE testcases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92249 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, asolokha at gmx dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92249 > > --- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha --- > OK, I'll finally bla

[Bug target/92225] ice in gen_smaxv2di3, at config/i386/sse.md:12225

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92225 > > --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak fro

[Bug middle-end/92308] Gimple passes could do a better job of forming address CSEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- > Very few micro-archite

[Bug middle-end/92308] Gimple passes could do a better job of forming address CSEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308 > > --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw --- ... > But there's n

[Bug c/92088] aggregates with VLAs and nested functions are broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088 > > --- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com&g

[Bug ipa/92409] [10 regression] r277920 causes ICE in gcc.dg/cast-function-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409 > > --- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/92283] [10 Regression] 454.calculix miscomparison since r276645 with -O2 -march=znver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283 > > --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška --- > > > > more compl

[Bug target/92448] Confusing using of TARGET_PREFER_AVX128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 11, 2019 10:20:10 AM GMT+01:00, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448 > >--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- &

[Bug rtl-optimization/92430] [9/10 Regression] Compile-time hog w/ -Os -fno-if-conversion -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-loop-optimize -fno-tree-vrp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, iii at linux dot ibm.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430 > > --- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- > Findings so far: when we for

[Bug lto/70929] [8/9 regression] Cross-module inlining for functions having argument passed by reference is no longer working.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929 > > Martin Jambor changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/92486] Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied even with memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 14, 2019 5:11:55 PM GMT+01:00, "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 > >--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- &

[Bug tree-optimization/92486] Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied even with memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 > > --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- > I have another idea, cant

[Bug tree-optimization/92486] Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied even with memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 > > Martin Sebor changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/92486] Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied even with memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 > > --- Comment #9 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > > Now as an e

[Bug tree-optimization/92516] ice in vect_schedule_slp_instance, at tree-vect-slp.c:4095

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516 > > --- Comment #5 from David Binderman --- > Please see my comment

[Bug tree-optimization/92486] Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied even with memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486 > > --- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug target/92462] [arm32] -ftree-pre makes a variable to be wrongly hoisted out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462 > > --- Comment #19 from Wilco --- > > for this. Which "obviously

[Bug tree-optimization/92558] [10 Regression] Miscompare of 554.roms_r with -Ofast -march=znver2 -flto since r278289

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92558 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92558 > > --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug target/92462] [arm32] -ftree-pre makes a variable to be wrongly hoisted out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462 > > --- Comment #23 from Wilco --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug tree-optimization/92584] A 454.calculix optimization opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92584 --- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > I noticed that the speed drop back on the trunk happened since r278281. > Would you be interested in what loop optimization ma

[Bug tree-optimization/92584] A 454.calculix optimization opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92584 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92584 > > --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug target/92651] [10 Regression] Unnecessary stv transform in some x86 backend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651 > > --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/92649] dead store elimination by iteration domain pruning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/92651] [10 Regression] Unnecessary stv transform in some x86 backend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651 > > --- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug rtl-optimization/92283] [10 Regression] 454.calculix miscomparison since r276645 with -O2 -march=znver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 27, 2019 2:36:38 PM GMT+01:00, "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283 > >--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov

[Bug fortran/92123] [F2018/array-descriptor] Scalar allocatable/pointer with array descriptor (via bind(C)): ICE with select rank or error scalar variable with POINTER or ALLOCATABLE in procedure wit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123 > > --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 47377 &

[Bug rtl-optimization/92712] [8/9/10 Regression] Performance regression with assumed values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 29 Nov 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 > > --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Before the first revision men

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >