https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117143
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59350&action=edit
Better testcase
you can use the noinline attribute to get the same effect, this has been fixed
in GCC 14 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-15
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117140
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect r15-4324-gaccb85345edb91 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117140
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* We are going to use the operand cache API, such as
SET_USE, SET_DEF, and FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_FAST. The operand
cache for each statement should be up-to-date. */
gcc_checking_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117140
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117139
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even more reduced:
```
constexpr int myconst = 5.0;
```
Also ICEs with complex integer too:
```
constexpr int myconst = 5i;
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117139
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117132
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > It depends on the ABI, some require the extension while others don't.
> > PR 14441 is for a target which has the extens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117132
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It depends on the ABI, some require the extension while others don't.
PR 14441 is for a target which has the extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > > Fixed on trunk sofar(?)
> >
> > Yes, could be closed if only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error:|[14/15 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117124
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>If I #define with any macro which is also available in the header files,
Yes that is expected and the behavior that the C standard preprocessor does.
For define extern, GCC should most likely warn about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> In this case, I suspect the warning might be legit, but bisected to
> r14-3460-gabf915193fbf72 anyway.
Was this with the reduced testcase or the original one?
With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luigighiron at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.5.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117107
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117107
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117104
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Reduced testcase:
For this only `-O2 -mavx -fno-vect-cost-model` is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117104
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-12
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117104
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
vect__69.1299_108 = MAX_EXPR <_110, { 0, 0 }>;
...
_9 = .REDUC_IOR (vect__69.1299_108);
_71 = _9;
if (_71 == 0)
Most likely:
/* MIN (X, Y) == X -> X <= Y */
/* MIN (X, Y) < X -> X > Y */
/* MIN (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117104
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
_110 = {left_59, _61};
if (_110 <= { 0, 0 })
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto ; [66.00%]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117104
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59325|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||109934
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> > Simplified a bit:
>
> Just some debug:
>
> When we create one of the unswitch_predicate for the second switch, we h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> Simplified a bit:
Just some debug:
When we create one of the unswitch_predicate for the second switch, we have:
true_range:
[irange] int [4, 4][6, 6][8, 8] NONZER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117103
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note if you are doing code size comparison, then looking at the # of
instructions for a target like x86 is not the way to go. You need to actually
look at the assembled instruction output.
In the case of us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117103
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59325
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59325&action=edit
Patch which might fix the issue
Can you test this patch? It might fix the issue by using an allocated array of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Version|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.3.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59324
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59324&action=edit
The first patch
This is the first patch which I am testing. Will handle the factor one
afterwards. Note the ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is one just for match_simplify_replacement/empty_bb_or_one_feeding_into_p:
```
struct s1{
unsigned b = 0;
};
int f(signed a, int c)
{
signed b = 0;
if (a < 0)
{
s1();
b = a;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117096
Bug ID: 117096
Summary: Clobbers sometimes gets in the way of phiopt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117093
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
t_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
a_5 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_1, _1, { 1, 1, 2, 3 }>;
a_6 = BIT_INSERT_EXPR ;
t_7 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
_2 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
a_8 = BIT_INSERT_EXPR ;
a_9 = BIT_INSERT_EXPR ;
IIRC th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
void foo (unsigned *);
void __GIMPLE (ssa)
bar1 ()
{
v unsigned int vect__35;
unsigned int buf[4];
foo (&buf);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
in the case of GCC, the attribute is lost early on for many accesses.
Especially a target specific one. In RTL mem has attributes but nothing like
preserve_static_offset . CE (ifcvt) could turn in theory tur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't think of a good way of solving this really. Having a specific pass
after register allocation might work but I am not 100% sure if it will work
always.
The other way of solving this is having special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> I mentioned it in PR115673 which may help with bisection range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which
mentions this failure explicitly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 117075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which
mentions this failure explicitly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
701 - 800 of 5567 matches
Mail list logo
