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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 29, 2019 3:25:45 PM GMT+01:00, "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 > >--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- &

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 29, 2019 4:59:35 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712 > >--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---

[Bug target/92747] x86 vector builtins throw exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92747 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92747 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/92768] [8/9/10 Regression] Maybe a wrong code for vector constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/92768] [8/9/10 Regression] Maybe a wrong code for vector constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 3, 2019 4:09:12 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768 > >--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- &

[Bug tree-optimization/92819] [10 Regression] Worse code generated on avx2 due to simplify_vector_constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819 > > --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > (In r

[Bug tree-optimization/92819] [10 Regression] Worse code generated on avx2 due to simplify_vector_constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819 > > --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > Sorry for

[Bug tree-optimization/61502] == comparison on "one-past" pointer gives wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 --- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 29, 2019 6:42:55 PM GMT+01:00, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 > >--- Comment #35 from Alexander Cherepanov >--- &

[Bug tree-optimization/93199] [8/9/10 Regression] Compile time hog in sink_clobbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- > As for the patch, I wonder if i

[Bug target/93039] Fails to use SSE bitwise ops for float-as-int manipulations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 8, 2020 4:34:40 PM GMT+01:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039 > >--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---

[Bug tree-optimization/93017] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-1.c scan-tree-dump graphite "tiled"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93017 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93017 > > --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- > On 2020-01

[Bug rtl-optimization/92925] RTL expansion throws away misalignment info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92925 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92925 > > --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > So we would probably need

[Bug tree-optimization/93199] [8/9/10 Regression] Compile time hog in sink_clobbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199 > > --- Comment #21 from Martin Liška --- > > Well - there's the

[Bug tree-optimization/15596] [8/9/10 Regression] Missed optimization with bitfields with return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/92980] [miss optimization]redundant load missed by fre.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92980 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 16, 2020 3:55:18 AM GMT+01:00, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92980 > >--- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang --- >

[Bug tree-optimization/57359] store motion causes wrong code for union access at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359 > > --- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/93301] Wrong optimization: instability of uninitialized variables leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 > > --- Comment #2 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > The problem is much

[Bug tree-optimization/61502] == comparison on "one-past" pointer gives wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 --- Comment #44 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 > > --- Comment #43 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > The follo

[Bug tree-optimization/92152] [10 Regression] Wrong code (Resurrection of PR53663)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152 > > --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- > Concerning: &g

[Bug middle-end/90348] [8/9/10 Regression] Partition of char arrays is incorrect in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 23, 2020 6:00:02 PM GMT+01:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348 > >--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov

[Bug tree-optimization/93301] Wrong optimization: instability of uninitialized variables leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 > > --- Comment #4 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/93301] Wrong optimization: instability of uninitialized variables leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 > > --- Comment #5 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > (In reply to rguen

[Bug tree-optimization/93301] Wrong optimization: instability of uninitialized variables leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 > > Alexander Monakov changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/93444] [8/9/10 Regression] ssa-loop-im introduces unconditional use of uninitialized variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93444 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93444 > > --- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov --- > The problem is lifting a

[Bug tree-optimization/93439] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimple_duplicate_bb, at tree-cfg.c:6277

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93439 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93439 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug tree-optimization/93301] Wrong optimization: instability of uninitialized variables leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93301 > > --- Comment #12 from Alexander Cherepanov --- > (In reply to rguen

[Bug middle-end/93582] [10 Regression] -Warray-bounds gives error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of struct E[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 > > --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/93742] Optimization request: pattern-match typical addition overflow checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93742 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93742 > > --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Do you mean match_uaddsub_over

[Bug tree-optimization/93771] SLP produces VEC_PERM when should have used vector generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93771 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93771 > > --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug target/93583] [10 Regression] bootstrap failure on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583 > > --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Segher Boes

[Bug target/93583] [10 Regression] bootstrap failure on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583 > > --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/93764] [10 Regression] lzo 2.10 test suite fails with -O2 and -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93764 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93764 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/93745] [8/9/10 Regression] Redundant store not eliminated with intermediate instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 > > --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- > That's why I asked "W

[Bug middle-end/93786] [8/9/10 Regression] gimplifier ICE with statement expression since r8-5526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786 > > --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug middle-end/93582] [10 Regression] -Warray-bounds gives error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of struct E[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 > > --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 47863 &

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #10 from Rich Felker --- > I don't think it's

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #12 from Rich Felker --- > To me the meaning of internal

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #15 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > Note that there are v

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #20 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > (In reply to rguen

[Bug c++/93916] Implicit copy/assignment alters padding bits of storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, andysem at mail dot ru wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916 > > --- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru --- > Are you saying that imple

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #28 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > A slightly modified ve

[Bug tree-optimization/93820] [8/9/10 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r9-1732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- > On the original testcase, th

[Bug tree-optimization/93745] Redundant store not eliminated with intermediate instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 > > --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- > Regarding the DECL_FIXED_

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658 > > --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- > Richi, should the followi

[Bug middle-end/93582] [10 Regression] -Warray-bounds gives error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of struct E[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 --- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582 > > --- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Unfortunately, it breaks mi

[Bug tree-optimization/93745] Redundant store not eliminated with intermediate instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745 > > --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > It would seem like C ought t

[Bug debug/93951] ICE with '-flto -g -femit-struct-debug-baseonly'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93951 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93951 > > Martin Liška changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug lto/93966] [9/10 Regression] -fcf-protection -flto -g don't work togeter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966 > > H.J. Lu changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #35 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > > > * Memory an

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 > > --- Comment #37 from Vincent Lefèvre --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug middle-end/56231] warning traces have bogus line information when using LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-08 09:07:09 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231 > > Manuel L?pez-Ib?

[Bug lto/52516] FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr45586* f_lto_pr45586*_0.o-f_lto_pr45586_0.o link, -O0 -flto (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52516 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-11 08:39:42 UTC --- On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52516 > > --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson

[Bug tree-optimization/56049] [4.8 Regression] Simplification to constants not done

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-12 11:06:23 UTC --- On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049 > > --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka

[Bug middle-end/56231] warning traces have bogus line information when using LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-12 11:11:11 UTC --- On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, matt at use dot net wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231 > > --- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett 2013

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-13 09:05:16 UTC --- On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, meissner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #10 from Mich

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-14 08:56:12 UTC --- On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #14 from Eric Botca

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-14 10:41:07 UTC --- On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #17 from Eric Botca

[Bug middle-end/56301] [4.7 Regression] wrong code with the fix for PR53844

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-18 13:34:31 UTC --- On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > &g

[Bug tree-optimization/55334] [4.8 Regression] mgrid regression (ipa-cp disables vectorization)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-19 13:49:30 UTC --- On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 > > --- Comment #26 from Martin Jam

[Bug tree-optimization/56398] [4.8 Regression] ICE (Segmentation fault) in dominated_by_p

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-02-21 08:58:11 UTC --- On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398 > > --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek

[Bug tree-optimization/49234] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] -Wstrict-overflow gives obviously unwarranted warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-04 09:57:40 UTC --- On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234 > > --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez

[Bug middle-end/56474] [4.8 regression] bogus Storage_Error raised for record containing empty zero-based array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-04 15:12:25 UTC --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 > > --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou

[Bug middle-end/56474] [4.8 regression] bogus Storage_Error raised for record containing empty zero-based array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-04 15:45:09 UTC --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 > > --- Comment #9 from Eric Botca

[Bug middle-end/56474] [4.8 regression] bogus Storage_Error raised for record containing empty zero-based array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-05 09:05:04 UTC --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474 > > --- Comment #12 from Eric Botca

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-05 13:58:15 UTC --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #26 from Eric Botca

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-05 14:26:00 UTC --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #27 from rguenther at

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-05 15:09:06 UTC --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #28 from Eric Botca

[Bug lto/50494] gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c fails spuriously on ppc with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-05 15:48:03 UTC --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494 > > --- Comment #32 from Eric Botca

[Bug middle-end/47344] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression][meta-bug] GCC gets slower and uses more memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-06 10:57:15 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344 > > --- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher

[Bug middle-end/54896] optimization slowness on large basic blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-06 11:11:28 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 > > Steven Bosscher changed: > &g

[Bug c++/55135] Segfault of gcc on a big file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 --- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-06 12:14:03 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 > > Steven Bossc

[Bug c++/55135] Segfault of gcc on a big file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-06 12:23:21 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 > > --- Comment #28 from Steven Bossc

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 08:33:10 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 > > --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug tree-optimization/49234] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] -Wstrict-overflow gives obviously unwarranted warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 08:36:43 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234 > > --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez

[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 08:44:28 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 > > Steven Bossc

[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 08:47:35 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 > > --- Comment #25 from Steven Bossc

[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 08:52:52 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 > > --- Comment #27 from Steven Bossc

[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-07 10:14:53 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 > > Steven Bossc

[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 --- Comment #42 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-08 09:22:39 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 > > --- Comment #38 from Steven Bossc

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-12 14:33:52 UTC --- On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, wbrana at gmail dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 > > --- Comment #15 from wbrana 2013-03

[Bug rtl-optimization/56434] document that __attribute__((__malloc__)) assumes returned pointer has BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56434 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-22 09:56:37 UTC --- On Thu, 21 Mar 2013, chip at pobox dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56434 > > --- Comment #7 from Chip Salzenberg

[Bug lto/55102] The options -flto and -On do not behave as described in GCC docs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55102 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-27 13:09:18 UTC --- On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55102 > > --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka

[Bug tree-optimization/56756] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (definition in block n follows the use !)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-28 10:07:29 UTC --- On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756 > > --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek

[Bug tree-optimization/56756] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (definition in block n follows the use !)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-28 10:26:48 UTC --- On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756 > > --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek

[Bug tree-optimization/54200] copyrename generates wrong debuginfo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-02 07:56:26 UTC --- On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > &g

[Bug middle-end/52436] BIT_FIELD_REF > should be canonicalized for non-bitfield accesses

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-02 14:21:56 UTC --- On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436 > > --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-03 07:55:34 UTC --- On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 > > --- Comment #19 from Eric Botca

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-03 09:20:21 UTC --- On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 > > --- Comment #21 from Eric Botca

[Bug tree-optimization/56812] Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized after r196872

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-04 09:45:27 UTC --- On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812 > > --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab 2013

[Bug middle-end/56848] [4.7 Regression] ICE (segfault) with the 4.7.3 release candidate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56848 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-05 12:46:17 UTC --- "doko at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56848 > >--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose 201

[Bug middle-end/56888] memcpy implementation optimized as a call to memcpy

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-09 13:17:10 UTC --- On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, xanclic at gmail dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888 > > --- Comment #5 from Max Reitz 2013

[Bug rtl-optimization/56921] [4.9 Regression] ICE in rtx_cost called by doloop_optimize_loops for PPC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56921 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-12 08:45:46 UTC --- On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56921 > > --- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher

[Bug tree-optimization/56935] Basic block is not SLP-vectorizeed after r197635.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56935 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-16 07:48:47 UTC --- On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56935 > > --- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev

[Bug tree-optimization/50789] Gather vectorization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-17 08:53:21 UTC --- On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, andrey.turetskiy at gmail dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789 > > Andrey Turets

[Bug tree-optimization/56982] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bad optimization with setjmp()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56982 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-17 09:07:10 UTC --- On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56982 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug rtl-optimization/57067] Missing control flow edges for setjmp/longjmp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-25 15:11:00 UTC --- On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067 > > --- Comment #2 from Andreas Kreb

[Bug tree-optimization/57075] [4.9 Regression] verify_flow_info failed: control flow in the middle of basic block

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-04-26 12:11:07 UTC --- On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075 > > --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek

[Bug target/56865] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-05-02 07:37:55 UTC --- On Wed, 1 May 2013, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865 > > Bill Schmidt changed: > &g

[Bug bootstrap/54659] [4.8 Regression] Bootstrap with --disable-nls broken under Windows

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-05-08 10:06:30 UTC --- On Tue, 7 May 2013, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 2013-05-07 13:06 , roland at gnu dot org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi

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