https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks, I can reproduce it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Can't repro with that seed (at least on aarch64-elf-gcc). I expect we're seeing
different source files.
I see:
$ md5sum src/*
72fdf911a2c5f9cc21df5af3ffb4726e src/driver.cpp
b8fdebf50f579fa5d7c93de5d42ae217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
--- Comment #10 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks. The testcase no longer ICEs on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98279
Bug ID: 98279
Summary: ICE in apply_scale with
--param=hot-bb-frequency-fraction >= 2^31
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98276
Bug ID: 98276
Summary: ICE in want_to_gcse_p, at gcse.c:808 with
--param=gcse-cost-distance-ratio > 2^31
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98271
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
On further investigation, it seems we ICE when align-loop-iterations is 2^31
and above (i.e. if it's negative, treated as a 32-bit signed integer).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98271
Bug ID: 98271
Summary: ICE in apply_scale, at profile-count.h:1082 with large
--param=align-loop-iterations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98268
Bug ID: 98268
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed with LTO and SVE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98248
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98248
Bug ID: 98248
Summary: [11 Regression] SVE: Wrong code with -O3
-msve-vector-bits=256
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks for fixing this Andrea! FWIW I can reproduce the ICE with the same
testcase and options on the head of the GCC 10 branch (contrary to my first
message).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Summary|SVE: Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
Bug ID: 98214
Summary: SVE: Wrong code with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=512
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, yeah, apologies: looks like I messed up the bisect here, scratch that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
Bug ID: 98199
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Aborted (stack smashing detected)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
@Martin: I originally saw the issue with a testcase generated by YARPGen
(https://github.com/intel/yarpgen), but this only hit the bug with LTO.
I reduced that with cvise and then manually tweaked the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
Bug ID: 98196
Summary: [11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O3
-march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=256
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98177
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98177
Bug ID: 98177
Summary: [11 Regression] SVE: ICE in expand_direct_optab_fn, at
internal-fn.c:3368
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98119
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SVE: Wrong code with -O1|[10/11 Regression] SVE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98119
Bug ID: 98119
Summary: SVE: Wrong code with -O1 -ftree-vectorize
-msve-vector-bits=512 -mtune=thunderx
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
C testcase:
const int *c(const int *p, const int *q)
{
if (*p < *q)
return q;
return p;
}
short a[575];
unsigned b[25];
unsigned char g;
int main()
{
for (int e = 0; e < 23; ++e)
a[e * 23] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
Bug ID: 97960
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 since
r8-6511-g3ae129323d
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Last reconfirmed|2014-05-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Perhaps more conveniently, simply changing the 0 to a 1 on the RHS of the
ternary operator, the following testcase still ICEs at -O3 on trunk:
extern char a[][12][18][17][17];
extern short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Indeed, you can recover the ICE on trunk by adding -fno-ssa-phiopt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
A bisect in the other direction shows that Jakub's r11-4717-g3e190757f:
commit 3e190757fa332d327bee27495f37beb01155cfab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Wed Nov 4 10:55:29 2020
phiopt: Optimize x ? 1024 :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97929
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97929
Bug ID: 97929
Summary: ICE: in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2219
(vect_get_num_vectors)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW, clang (trunk) rejects that last testcase with:
:3:6: error: array has sizeless element type '__SVFloat32_t'
b x[c];
^
:6:19: note: in instantiation of template class 'a<__SVFloat32_t, 2>'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a simple testcase that hits both ICEs.
#include
template struct a {
b x[c];
b [](int i) { return x[i]; }
};
a x;
int main() {
svbool_t l;
svfloat32_t m = svmla_f32_z(l, x[0], x[1], m);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97851
Bug ID: 97851
Summary: aarch64: Wrong code with -Os -fmodulo-sched since
r7-879-g43c0068e60
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97850
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97850
Bug ID: 97850
Summary: [11 Regression] aarch64: ICE in expand_insn, at
optabs.c:7467 since r11-1143-gb05d5563f
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
Bug ID: 97849
Summary: aarch64: ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: ifcvt
since r10-3543-gf30b3d28
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-12
Summary|[10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97809
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
Bug ID: 97730
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64, SVE2: Wrong code since
r10-5853-g0a09a948 (wrong pattern for BCAX)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
For the related testcase:
int a, c, d, e;
long b;
void f() {
short g = a;
for (; c; c++) {
b &= a == 0 ? 1 : g / a;
d |= e;
}
}
with the same options on AArch64, we ICE with a similar (but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97706
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97706
Bug ID: 97706
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE with LTO at -O3: verify_gimple
failed (incompatible types in 'PHI' argument 0)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
Bug ID: 97701
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64: ICE in
extract_constrain_insn since r10-4447-g095f78c6
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
Bug ID: 97693
Summary: [11 Regression] SVE: ICE in prepare_load_store_mask,
at tree-vect-stmts.c since r11-1143-gb05d5563
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #11 from Alex Coplan ---
The patch series has been restructured to first fix the AArch64 bug, and then
restore code quality with a patch to combine.
The AArch64 patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97526
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
For the similar testcase:
long a;
short b;
signed char c(char d, char e) { return d + e; }
int main(void) {
a = -30;
for (; a < 24; a = c(a, 5)) {
short *f =
(*f)--;
}
if (b != -11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
To be clear, the second beq .L8 is in the body of the main loop is not taken
either in the execution described here. The lack of a comment there might have
suggested otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
Bug ID: 97457
Summary: [10/11 Regression] SVE: wrong code since
r10-4752-g2d56600c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97440
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Created attachment 49377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49377=edit
broken assembly at r7-1513
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97440
Bug ID: 97440
Summary: aarch64: Wrong code with -Os -fmodulo-sched -fno-dce
-fno-strict-aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] aarch64: |aarch64: Wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
> So maybe try bisecting/reproducing with -fno-strict-aliasing?
Ah, yes, I can reproduce before that revision with -fno-strict-aliasing. I'll
re-bisect, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Bug ID: 97421
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code with -O2
-fmodulo-sched since r10-1318-ga7e8a46
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97404
Bug ID: 97404
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code since
r9-3666-g74ca1c01d
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97400
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97400
Bug ID: 97400
Summary: [10/11 Regression] SVE: wrong code since
r10-3906-g96eb7d7a64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97079
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Related testcase that gives a similar ICE:
int c, d;
int e[1];
void a(int *);
void f(void) {
while (d);
int g[5];
for (; d < 2; d++)
e[d] = c;
for (; d; d++)
g[d] = (long)e;
a(g);
}
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Bug ID: 97317
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:369
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
So the plan is to fix this with a patch to combine. Waiting on a review from
Segher for https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/555158.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97275
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dr.duncan.p.simpson at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97251
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97251
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Bug ID: 97252
Summary: [10/11 Regression] arm: ICE compiling
pure-code/pr94538-2.c with MVE since
r10-7293-g3eff57aa
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97251
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk. Needs backporting to GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97251
Bug ID: 97251
Summary: [10/11 Regression] arm: ICEs compiling
pure-code/no-literal-pool.c with integer MVE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
501 - 582 of 582 matches
Mail list logo
