https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115275
Bug ID: 115275
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for Dead Code
Elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115202
Bug ID: 115202
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: std::min(f ?
(unsigned short)m : a, ~0)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115011
Bug ID: 115011
Summary: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: (bool) (f ? 1:
t) ==> 1 when bool t = (0 >= f) + x;
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115004
Bug ID: 115004
Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for
Dead Code Elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114972
Bug ID: 114972
Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for
Dead Code Elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114969
Bug ID: 114969
Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization:
(bool)((std::max((unsigned long long) 0, (unsigned
long long) var_0)) | ( var_0 ? 1 : 0)) => (bool)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114967
Bug ID: 114967
Summary: Missed optimization: std::min((int) f, -a) ==> -a
where (bool f, unsigned char a)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114823
Bug ID: 114823
Summary: Missed optimization of redundant loops
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114782
Bug ID: 114782
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization of Induction Variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114722
Bug ID: 114722
Summary: Missed optimization: !e*d*e=>0, affected by useless
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114719
Bug ID: 114719
Summary: Missed optimization: conditional in loop is an
invariant (a%2)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
Bug ID: 114701
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114651
Bug ID: 114651
Summary: Missed optimization: (c - y) + ((a - c) - (b - y)) =>
a-b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114546
Bug ID: 114546
Summary: Missed optimization: ~m || n || m+2 ==> 1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545
Bug ID: 114545
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for CSE
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
--- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
https://godbolt.org/z/zKq3dsqW3
This is a regression since gcc-7.3. If the bisection right:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/540b5cb6c70.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511
Bug ID: 114511
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization: x = -y; x = c + x +
y; ==> x=c;
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114508
Bug ID: 114508
Summary: Missed optimization of Dead Code Elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
Bug ID: 114277
Summary: Missed optimization: x*(x||b) => x
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114230
Bug ID: 114230
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion: a=0||a
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114204
Bug ID: 114204
Summary: Missed optimization: -(a*!a) => 0 when a=-b-c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145
Bug ID: 114145
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114009
Bug ID: 114009
Summary: Missed optimization: (!a) * a => 0 when a=(a/2)*2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113801
Bug ID: 113801
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113716
Bug ID: 113716
Summary: Missed optimization: (2/a)*b*(!b) => 0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113714
Bug ID: 113714
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for
redundancy computation elimination: -(w+d-x)-x =>
-(w+d)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113440
Bug ID: 113440
Summary: Missed optimization for redundancy computation
elimination because of missed judgment for unsigned
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113435
Bug ID: 113435
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113434
Bug ID: 113434
Summary: [13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for Loop
Unswitch
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113433
Bug ID: 113433
Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for
redundancy computation elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113426
Bug ID: 113426
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113301
Bug ID: 113301
Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization: (1/(x+1))/2
=> 0 since gcc-12
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
--- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> -fsanitize=undefined is even explicitly mentioned in the bug report
> guideline at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/. And the red banner in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
Bug ID: 113271
Summary: [Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3 since GCC-9 (could
be due to wrong optimization)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113265
Bug ID: 113265
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy
computation elimination may be due to constant
propagation about 0 too late
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113080
Bug ID: 113080
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112994
Bug ID: 112994
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy
computation elimination because pattern is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112746
Bug ID: 112746
Summary: Missed optimization for redundancy computation
elimination (fre1(tree) for global variable)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
Bug ID: 112723
Summary: Missed optimization for invariants 'c+c' when c +=
-2147483648 and c is a global variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112277
Bug ID: 112277
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion because of missed
loopUnswitch and useless instruction elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112123
Bug ID: 112123
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion because loop
invariants are not identified
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112117
Bug ID: 112117
Summary: Missed optimization of LICM that might need to be
combined with partial loop unrolling
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111780
Bug ID: 111780
Summary: Missed optimization of '(t*4)/(t*2) -> 2'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111724
--- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yup, it's difficult. reassoc doesn't handle signed arithmetic, that's
> usually the pass that optimizes association for invariant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111724
Bug ID: 111724
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimizations probably because of
too early arithmetic optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111718
--- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
We noticed one change between gcc-13.2 and the current gcc-trunk:
https://godbolt.org/z/j5Mnvno9n
In the following code, gcc-13.2 does not yet have the ability to optimize as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111718
Bug ID: 111718
Summary: Missed optimization of '(a+a)/a'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111640
Bug ID: 111640
Summary: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch (Simple loops)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #6 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yi from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #5 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So this is again reassociation with LIM, the same issue as PR 111560.
For this similar code, GCC works as expected:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #4 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yi from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> invariant up to level 1, cost 1.
>
> Basically because the cost is not high enough ...
>
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111560
--- Comment #4 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The problem is in this case:
> e=a+b+c; //line 5
> f=d+b+c; //"b+c" can be replaced with the value at line 5
>
> at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111564
Bug ID: 111564
Summary: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
Bug ID: 111563
Summary: Missed optimization of LICM
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111562
Bug ID: 111562
Summary: Missed optimization when the value of another variable
can be used directly
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111561
Bug ID: 111561
Summary: Missed optimization of available expression in if
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111560
Bug ID: 111560
Summary: Missed optimization of available expression
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
58 matches
Mail list logo