[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] spurious |[6/7 Regression] spurious

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Based on c#18.

[Bug tree-optimization/83563] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault (in instantiate_scev_r)

||law at redhat dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/83572] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:1184 (error: dominator of 7 should be 15, not 13)

||law at redhat dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/83640] [8 Regression] ICE in generic_overlap, at gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c:814

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Fixed by Martin's patch on the trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/83668] [8 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fgraphite-identity

||law at redhat dot com

[Bug middle-end/83699] [8 regression] Many 64-bit SPARC gcc.dg/vect tests FAIL

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Should be fixed by Richard's patch on the trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/79224] [7 Regression] Large C-Ray slowdown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8 Regression] Large |[7 Regression] Large C-Ray

[Bug target/83641] -fstack-clash-protection generates incorrect CFI on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83641 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/83654] -fstack-clash-protection probes below the stack pointer for VLA with constant size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83654 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81611] [8 Regression] gcc un-learned loop / post-increment optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law --- MEM_REF (as opposed to TARGET_MEM_REF) should be able to handle any simple SSA_NAME + CONSTANT_OFFSET which are all we're really concerned with here. THe target's addressing modes don't really enter the

[Bug rtl-optimization/83620] [8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1470: unable to find a register to spill with -flive-range-shrinkage --param=max-sched-ready-insns=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83620 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law --- No problem Eric. I'm monitoring on behalf of Florian who'd really like to see this fixed for gcc-8. Actually just noticed it still wasn't showing up in the queries. It didn't have a target milestone set

[Bug middle-end/21161] [6/7/8 Regression] "clobbered by longjmp" warning ignores the data flow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/81611] [8 Regression] gcc un-learned loop / post-increment optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- You know, I wonder if we're missing something bigger here. ISTM we're potentially missing CSEs in memory addresses as well as forward propagation opportunities in MEM_REF expressions. I strongly suspect

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Note you lost the regression marker when this was made a duplicate of 21161. So it's unlikely anyone would have looked at it until the next release cycle. My understanding from Florian is that at least

[Bug rtl-optimization/83565] [7/8 regression] RTL combine pass breaks shift result (at least on ia64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #27

[Bug target/83641] -fstack-clash-protection generates incorrect CFI on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83641 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So the issue here is when we have a noreturn function we use a push/pop sequence to probe the top of the stack. The generic dwarf2 CFI bits interpret the pop as restoring the value of the popped register.

[Bug target/83641] -fstack-clash-protection generates incorrect CFI on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83641 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Note this is specific to x86/x86_64 noreturn functions. No other targets are potentially affected.

[Bug target/83641] -fstack-clash-protection generates incorrect CFI on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83641 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/83641] -fstack-clash-protection generates incorrect CFI on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83641 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- My bisections keep landing on: commit bb173647d8221f86812f4e98942960b894e9e972 (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad) Author: hubicka Date: Thu Nov 23 15:56:28 2017 +

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This really looks like something tree-ssa-uninit.c ought to be handling too. [ Just to be clear we should fix both tree-ssa-uninit.c the cfgcleanup. ] We have a PHI with a default definition on the RHS:

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So just a note. We *could* pick this up without waiting on Aldy's work. After the second DOM pass we're failing to merge a pair of blocks because there are still SSA_NAMEs queued for renaming. If we were

[Bug target/82666] [7/8 regression]: sum += (x>128 ? x : 0) puts the cmov on the critical path (at -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com See

[Bug c++/82764] [7/8 Regression] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5030

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/79224] [7/8 Regression] Large C-Ray slowdown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/79405] [8 Regression] Infinite loop in fwprop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/82682] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr50038.c scan-assembler-times movzbl 2 (found 3 times) since r253958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- One thought would be to realize that the copy/extend sequence seen in this case is special. It's going to be used when the input for the extension can't be used in an extension (ie %esi in this case). ie,

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Fixed by Wilco's patch on the trunk.

[Bug ipa/83506] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in force_nonfallthru_and_redirect

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Fixed on the trunk.

[Bug target/82682] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr50038.c scan-assembler-times movzbl 2 (found 3 times) since r253958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Of course we can't propagate because %esi doesn't have a QImode equivalent. So to back up a little bit. The costing changes twiddled the register assignments. In particular reg93 gets allocated into %esi

[Bug rtl-optimization/81611] [8 Regression] gcc un-learned loop / post-increment optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug target/82682] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr50038.c scan-assembler-times movzbl 2 (found 3 times) since r253958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Per c#5.

[Bug tree-optimization/81945] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Per c#5.

[Bug bootstrap/81869] [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Given c#7.

[Bug rtl-optimization/83304] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Fixed by Segher's patch on the trunk.

[Bug preprocessor/83492] [7/8 Regression] Optimized search_line_fast breaks preprocessor on aarch64_be

, ||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Aldy, want to run with this one? I think the libcpp patch itself is obvious. You just need to wire up a testcase...

[Bug tree-optimization/81949] DOM fails to simplify conditional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/83477] [8 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Doesn't look to be the same correctness issue I'm tracking right now as I get a mis-compare with and without those changes. Sigh.

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It could well be the same problem. The fix for the codegen bug I'm tracking affects relax_sh.c from 435.gromacs. I'm still investigating.

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Richi, I've got a code correctness issue I'm looking at with those changes. If you could pass along the .dom2 and .dom3 dumps for the 435.gromacs benchmark I could probably scan them for the issue without

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/83477] [8 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I see it. Fix spinning while I sleep.

[Bug middle-end/83477] [8 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It's another VR_UNDEFINED sneaking through.

[Bug tree-optimization/80198] [6/7/8 Regression] does not vectorize generic inplace integer operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Given that B and A have the same cost to compute, DOM, per design decision, leaves them alone. It makes no attempt to canonicalize on one or the other. While we know there's an equivalence between A and

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/83460] [8 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr79095-4.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/83460] [8 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr79095-4.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Actually the 79095-4 test is testing that we do loop distribution and propagation of constants into the the memset call and that after propagation we realize there's a bogus path that we actually can't

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yes. Very much want to keep this open -- I've got a patch for the missed optimization, but need to recover the tests I'd written and somehow lost before submitting.

[Bug middle-end/83460] [8 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr79095-4.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/82860] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/pr79347.c FAILs

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- ALmost certainly a DUP. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 82965 ***

[Bug other/82965] [8 regression][armeb] gcc.dg/vect/pr79347.c starts failing after r254379

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/81362] [8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-57.c execution test

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This was fixed back in July: commit f0f5171608d68c3cb3aa6aa43d64814d4f9d67d5 Author: krebbel <krebbel@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> Date: Tue Jul

[Bug ipa/82278] [8 regression] gcc.dg/lto/chkp-ctor-merge fail

||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- MPX/CHKP is likely to be deprecated. Moving to P4.

[Bug target/82767] [8 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr71321.c scan-assembler-times fail

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Markus has retuned the div/mod costing model and I've committed Sebastian's change to use -mtune=generic on this test.

[Bug tree-optimization/83055] [8 Regression] ICE in operator>, at profile-count.h:834

||2017-12-16 CC||law at redhat dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Still happens on the trunk r255606.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82849] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code since r254379

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I went ahead and committed Jan's patch to the trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/80958] [8 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr70021.c FAILs

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This was fixed on the trunk by Jan back in Oct: commit 4b57298d4731a37c50ab145bc766a926a98cebf0 Author: hubicka <hubicka@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b05

[Bug tree-optimization/81240] [7/8 Regression] ICE in dfs_enumerate_from

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81240 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/83358] [8 Regression] division not converted with Intel tuning since r253934

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Fixed by Markus's patch on the trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/78394] False positives of maybe-uninitialized with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- -O0 has none of the analysis necessary and I believe you get no warnings at all. A minimum of -Og is needed, but -Og is inherently going to give many false positives.

[Bug tree-optimization/78394] False positives of maybe-uninitialized with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 69026, which changed state. Bug 69026 Summary: dwarf2out.c:4295 warning: ‘finder[...]addr_table_entry_struct_union::label’ may be used uninitialized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69026 What

[Bug middle-end/69026] dwarf2out.c:4295 warning: ‘finder[...]addr_table_entry_struct_union::label’ may be used uninitialized

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Per c#2.

[Bug middle-end/61409] [6 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false-positive with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409 --- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Nevermind my last comment. Totally wrong. This is fixed on the trunk, totally and completely by Aldy's changes. The trunk changed in that it can thread the jump now because we'll be under growth

[Bug middle-end/61409] [6 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false-positive with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409 --- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So this is "fixed" on the trunk. The trunk now has the ability to track statements that will likely become dead code as a result of jump threading. That's enough to get the provided samples under the

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 42145, which changed state. Bug 42145 Summary: bogus "may be used uninitialized" (a || b converted to a|b) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/42145] bogus "may be used uninitialized" (a || b converted to a|b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/20968] spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional PHIs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968 Bug 20968 depends on bug 36550, which changed state. Bug 36550 Summary: Wrong "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional PHIs) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 36550, which changed state. Bug 36550 Summary: Wrong "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional PHIs) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/36550] Wrong "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional PHIs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794 Bug 19794 depends on bug 81165, which changed state. Bug 81165 Summary: [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So to record my current thoughts. There's two competing needs here. We sometimes want to thread as the simplifications can enable vectorization. Other times we do not want to thread because threading

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- And of course there's cases where we depend on threading similar situations to enable vectorization. I loathe the idea of checking for graphite to determine whether or not to thread these edges, it feels

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Not failing for me. Oh wait. This depends on graphite? I don't typically build with graphite. Let me restart...

[Bug middle-end/82123] [7/8 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---

[Bug middle-end/79257] spurious -Wformat-overflow=1 warning with -O2 and sanitizer

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So the fix for pr82123 will fix the original bug report, which isn't a surprise because at the core they're both problems with a lack of context sensitive

[Bug tree-optimization/81592] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I'm going mark this as a DUP of 82123. Ultimately the problem here is a lack of good range information in gimple-ssa-sprintf which is addressed by the same

[Bug middle-end/82123] [7/8 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- *** Bug 81592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/83298] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83383] [8 Regression] Wrong code with a bunch of type conversion and ternary operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83298] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||babokin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug preprocessor/83173] C preprocessor generates incorrect linemarkers

, ||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Adding David who knows the linemap bits. David -- Mike has also posted a patch. See gcc-patches archives Dec 1.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

|NEW Last reconfirmed||2017-12-11 CC||law at redhat dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Can't see how ppc-spe can be P1 :-) BUt will certainly

[Bug rtl-optimization/21182] [6/7/8 Regression] gcc can use registers but uses stack instead

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182 --- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So for gcc-8. UNAIL_REGS -O3 41 stack references UNAIL_REGS -O2 41 stack referenecs DNAIL_REGS -O3 3 stack references DNAIL_REGS -O2 3 stack references In the DNAIL_REGS case I think all three

[Bug rtl-optimization/80747] [6/7/8 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tailrecursion-4.c fails with ICE when compiled with options "-fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partition"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/82211] [8 Regression] ICE error: non-cold basic block 32 reachable only by paths crossing the cold partition

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I think this was fixed by Eric B's fixes to bb-reorder a couple months ago.

[Bug middle-end/82742] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3: verify_flow_info failed

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This was fixed by Eric's Oct 27 change to bb-reorder on the trunk.

[Bug fortran/83379] [8 Regression] Intermittent failure of min/maxval_char*.f90 test cases

||law at redhat dot com

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law --- You *really* don't want to do this with a match.pd pattern. Recovering the arith-with-overflow optimizations is virtually impossible in the general case. All that really needs to be done here is

[Bug target/67751] redundant zero extension

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- The combiner now removes the redundant extension on the trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/66726] missed optimization, factor conversion out of COND_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/53347] Duplicated redundant condition in compare-elim.c

||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Eric fixed this as part of the compare-elim revamp last year.

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >