[Bug target/115556] error: this operation requires the SVE ISA extension

2024-06-20 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115556 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Same with 14.1.0 - how's this a GCC bug and not a highway bug (google likely > only tests llvm)? This was indicated upstream: *

[Bug target/115556] error: this operation requires the SVE ISA extension

2024-06-20 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115556 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Debian build: * https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=highway=arm64=1.2.1%7Egit20240610.f384204-2=1718119953=0

[Bug target/115556] New: error: this operation requires the SVE ISA extension

2024-06-20 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115556 Bug ID: 115556 Summary: error: this operation requires the SVE ISA extension Product: gcc Version: 13.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-12-15 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #40 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #38) > > I found this has been marked as resolved but it seems that the patch in > > comment #34 hasn't been pushed,

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

2023-12-14 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #16 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Could someone from the GCC/armhf team please at least 'confirm' this bug report ? Thanks

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-12-14 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #36 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #32) [...] > So IMHO #c1 test case is problematic, hi @Mathieu, could you have a double > check? I vaguely recall crafting this test-case with cvise with gcc-13.

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

2023-10-06 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56065|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

2023-10-06 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #14 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12) > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #10) > > I could not reduce to a single *.cc file. The function needs to be in an alt > > file 'foo.cc'. > > Can

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

2023-10-06 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55816|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-10-04 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #17 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > That returns a address to a local variable ... Sorry I am having a hard time driving cvise correctly. Here is the latest version: g++-13 -g -o works

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-10-04 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56015|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-29 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Here is a dead simple reduced version: ``` % cat pr111522.cc #include #include #pragma GCC push_options #pragma GCC target "cpu=power10" float BitCast(int in) { float out; memcpy(, ,

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-09-29 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #14 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Here is a first reproducer. Using GCC-13.2.0 % g++ -O0 -o works tu.cc && ./works % g++ -O1 -o fails tu.cc && ./fails zsh: abort ./fails

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-09-29 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #13 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 56015 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56015=edit cvise reduced

[Bug tree-optimization/109175] error: 'void* __builtin_memset(void*, int, long unsigned int)' writing 4 or more bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109175 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Notice how there is no check for null on aq. Do you want to keep this one open or should we close it as invalid ?

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #12 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For reference malat@perotto ~/pr2 % g++-11 --version g++-11 (Debian 11.4.0-4) 11.4.0 malat@perotto ~/pr2 % g++-12 --version g++-12 (Debian 12.3.0-9) 12.3.0

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #6) > Confirmed, thanks for reporting. > > I noticed that the reduced test case in #c1 can make gcc-13 complain with: > > test.cc:67:16: error: expected

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55993 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55993=edit widen_mul_test.cc

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55992 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55992=edit foo.cc

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-O2 is working)

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For reference: Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=g++ COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/13/lto-wrapper Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf Configured with: ../src/configure -v

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-O2 is working)

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre --- I could not reduce to a single *.cc file. The function needs to be in an alt file 'foo.cc'. So could someone please compare: g++ -std=c++11 -o works -O2 -g -Wfatal-errors -Werror -Wall -Wextra

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-O2 is working)

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55991 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55991=edit widen_mul_test.cc

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-O2 is working)

2023-09-26 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55990 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55990=edit foo.cc

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.4.0 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.5.0 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- I can make the upstream code fails using g++-11 / g++-12 version (Debian/sid).

[Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55989 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55989=edit cvise reduced test case % g++ -std=c++11 -o works -DHWY_COMPILE_ONLY_EMU128 -DHWY_BROKEN_EMU128=0 -maltivec

[Bug target/111591] New: ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591 Bug ID: 111591 Summary: ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align / -O3 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre --- for reference: % c++ --verbose -O2 -flto base2.cc && ./a.out Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=c++ COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/13/lto-wrapper

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre --- If you download pr111522.cc from comment #8, you should be able to reproduce exactly the original upstream issue. Steps: % c++ -O2 -flto pr111522.cc && ./a.out vs % c++ -O2 pr111522.cc && ./a.out

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55988 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55988=edit gcc -E -P

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55987 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55987=edit gcc -E -P

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #4) > > > So the original > > > (upstream) code is somewhat buggy as it rely on lazy init for global var. > > >

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre --- > So the original > (upstream) code is somewhat buggy as it rely on lazy init for global var. Those global vars are in different namespace, I actually fail to underwhat why the definition with

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For reference: * https://github.com/google/highway/commit/fea3dba9cfec3a74ddcd8ecac3a5d4d8429191e4

[Bug target/111522] Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I think this is just broken code. > > It does: > #define HWY_BEFORE_NAMESPACE() > \ >

[Bug target/111522] New: Different code path for static initialization with flto

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111522 Bug ID: 111522 Summary: Different code path for static initialization with flto Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/110622] x87: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #16 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #15) > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #14) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13) > > > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #12) > > >

[Bug target/110622] x87: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #14 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13) > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #12) > > I am seeing a difference in result (log1p computation) in the range: > > > > 4318952042648305665 -

[Bug target/110622] x87: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #12 from Mathieu Malaterre --- I am seeing a difference in result (log1p computation) in the range: 4318952042648305665 - 0x1.1p-64 4368493837572636672 - 0x1.002p-53 the other values seems to match expectation of log1p

[Bug target/110622] x87: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Typical setup: g++ -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -DHIDESYMPTOM -std=c++11 -g -m32 -fexcess-precision=fast -O2 -o works math_test.cc -Wfatal-errors -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic

[Bug target/110622] x87: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55959 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55959=edit cvise reduced test case

[Bug target/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-09-21 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-O2 is working)

2023-09-15 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre --- new cvise setup started today: % cvise check.sh widen_mul_test.cc 00:01:16 INFO ===< 1427429 >=== 00:01:16 INFO running 4 interestingness tests in parallel 00:01:16 INFO INITIAL PASSES 00:01:16 INFO

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-14 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #16 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Interesting, the following works for me: % /usr/bin/c++ -O1 -mcpu=power8 -mno-htm -flto=auto -c skeleton_test.cc

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-14 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #15 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For some reason the no-htm flag does not seems to work in my case: % /usr/bin/c++ -O1 -mcpu=power8 -flto=auto -c skeleton_test.cc skeleton_test.cc: In member function 'TestFloorLog2::operator()

[Bug target/111231] [13/14 Regression] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-14 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Code in #c4 and #c5 are bogus. They also fails with g++-12. Let me start my cvise machinery over again (may take some time).

[Bug target/111386] flto=auto => lto1: fatal error: target specific builtin not available

2023-09-12 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111386 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/111386] New: flto=auto => lto1: fatal error: target specific builtin not available

2023-09-12 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111386 Bug ID: 111386 Summary: flto=auto => lto1: fatal error: target specific builtin not available Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-12 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9) > It looks to me that the error message is expected, because the source code > forces the function as always_inline, users would like it to be inlined > always,

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Further reduced: #include #define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens) #define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str) HWY_PRAGMA(GCC target targets_str) __attribute__((always_inline)) void PreventElision() {

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre --- In case this helps resolve this, here is the cvise-reduced code: % cat skeleton_test.cc #include #define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens) namespace hwy { #define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str)

[Bug target/111367] Error: operand out of range (0x1391c is not between 0xffffffffffff8000 and 0x7fff)

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Reduced test case: % cat bench_sort.cc #define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens) #define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str) HWY_PRAGMA(GCC target targets_str) #define HWY_BEFORE_NAMESPACE()

[Bug target/111367] Error: operand out of range (0x1391c is not between 0xffffffffffff8000 and 0x7fff)

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- I am using gcc-snapshot from Debian/sid package. It does contains fixes from PR/111212.

[Bug target/111367] Error: operand out of range (0x1391c is not between 0xffffffffffff8000 and 0x7fff)

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- full log: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=highway=powerpc=1.0.8%7Egit20230830.fed142a-1=1694162297=0

[Bug target/111367] New: Error: operand out of range (0x1391c is not between 0xffffffffffff8000 and 0x7fff)

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367 Bug ID: 111367 Summary: Error: operand out of range (0x1391c is not between 0x8000 and 0x7fff) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre --- reduction started: % cvise check.sh skeleton_test.cc 00:00:02 INFO ===< 4165591 >=== 00:00:02 INFO running 4 interestingness tests in parallel 00:00:02 INFO INITIAL PASSES

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- compilation flags required are: `-O1 -mcpu=power9 -flto=auto`

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Typical setup: * https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/5W45a6j8x

[Bug target/111366] error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Full log: * https://launchpadlibrarian.net/684588621/buildlog_ubuntu-mantic-ppc64el.highway_1.0.7-1_BUILDING.txt.gz

[Bug target/111366] New: error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch

2023-09-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366 Bug ID: 111366 Summary: error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' 'hwy::PreventElision(int&)void': target specific option mismatch Product: gcc Version:

[Bug target/110960] TestSatWidenMulPairwiseAdd in the Google Highway test suite fails when compiled with GCC 12 or later with the -mcpu=power9 option

2023-09-08 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110960 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre --- @rguenth You added `needs-bisection` keyword, but the example is quite small: 154 lines of code.

[Bug target/111051] [14 Regression] highway-1.0.6 fails to build as gcc-14.0.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/14.0.0/include/avxintrin.h:1238:1: error: inlining failed in call to 'always_inline' '__

2023-09-08 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111051 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||malat at debian dot org ---

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-09-06 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #12 from Mathieu Malaterre --- regression started today % cvise check.sh math_test.cc 00:00:27 INFO ===< 3971165 >=== 00:00:27 INFO running 4 interestingness tests in parallel 00:00:27 INFO INITIAL

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-09-05 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Result from cvise (+manual editing): c++ -Wfatal-errors -Wall -Wextra -Werror -o works -O1 -march=armv7-a -mfpu=neon-vfpv4 -mfloat-abi=hard -mfp16-format=ieee step7.cc -> exit(0) c++ -Wfatal-errors

[Bug tree-optimization/111268] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504

2023-09-05 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Looks like this one is already fixed. Same symptoms with 20230902 snapshot: *

[Bug target/111268] internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504

2023-09-01 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For reference % /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O2 -c m.c && echo "success" success with % cat m.c #pragma GCC aarch64 "arm_sve.h" svbool_t foo (svint8_t a, svint8_t b, svbool_t

[Bug target/111268] internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504

2023-09-01 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55830 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55830=edit preprocessed source % /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -c testcase.i

[Bug target/111268] internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504

2023-09-01 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- % /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ --version g++ (Debian 20230811-1) 14.0.0 20230811 (experimental) [master r14-3139-g68783211f66] Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software;

[Bug target/111268] New: internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504

2023-09-01 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268 Bug ID: 111268 Summary: internal compiler error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-08-31 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Intermediate result (creduce Debian/sid): #include "hwy/tests/test_util-inl.h" namespace hwy { namespace HWY_NAMESPACE { struct a { template void operator()(b, c d) { using e = MakeUnsigned;

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O1 is working)

2023-08-30 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre --- creduce process started on amhdal.d.o machine: % creduce check.sh mul_test.cc ===< 1797132 >=== running 3 interestingness tests in parallel ===< pass_unifdef :: 0 >=== (10.0 %, 31474 bytes) [...] will

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level

2023-08-30 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- reported upstream as: * https://github.com/google/highway/issues/1683

[Bug target/111231] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level

2023-08-30 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55816 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55816=edit Preprocessed source % /usr/bin/c++ -save-temps -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -I/home/malat/highway -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -fPIE

[Bug target/111231] New: armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level

2023-08-30 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 Bug ID: 111231 Summary: armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/111212] [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

2023-08-28 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- reduced: % g++ -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -c testcase.i testcase.i:15:30: warning: '{anonymous}::m {anonymous}::n(a) [with f = short int]' used but never defined 15 | template m n(a); |

[Bug target/111212] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

2023-08-28 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Compilation line: % /usr/bin/c++ -freport-bug -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -DTOOLCHAIN_MISS_ASM_HWCAP_H -I/home/malat/highway -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -fPIE -fvisibility=hidden

[Bug target/111212] New: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

2023-08-28 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 Bug ID: 111212 Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/110804] [13 regression] eliminate_stmt ICE on aarch64

2023-07-25 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||malat at debian dot org ---

[Bug target/110643] [13/14 Regression] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-13 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > I wonder if you can try a recent GCC 13 snapshot or the head of the branch > and also confirm with GCC 14 trunk? Could you suggest a docker image I could

[Bug target/110643] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-13 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Does -ffp-contract=on help? Nope, I do not see any difference in symptoms: ``` 73: [ RUN ] HwyMathTestGroup/HwyMathTest.TestAllAtan2/NEON_WITHOUT_AES

[Bug target/110643] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-13 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Malaterre --- > We are going to need a self contained testcase to figure this out ... You are not going to like it. Anyway here it goes: [using Debian sid/arm64] $ git clone https://github.com/google/highway.git $

[Bug target/110643] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-13 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Malaterre --- > $ export CXX=-O1 > $ export CXXFLAGS=g++-13 should read: $ export CXX=g++-13 $ export CXXFLAGS=-O1

[Bug target/110643] arm64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-12 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Upstream ref: * https://github.com/google/highway/issues/1549

[Bug target/110643] New: arm64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-12 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643 Bug ID: 110643 Summary: arm64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working) Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||malat at debian dot org --- Comment

[Bug target/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from

[Bug target/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 Mathieu Malaterre changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug c++/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Malaterre --- > Does adding -fexcess-precision=standard help? What about -ffloat-store ? highway is c++ only. Those flags are C only

[Bug c++/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Here is my current state of work: * https://github.com/malaterre/highway/commit/771ca57d2d29b48f91beae033f6854f9b2dfb730 I am open to suggestion to further reduce the test case, as I am not familiar

[Bug c++/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55518 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55518=edit Preprocessed source % /usr/bin/g++-13 -save-temps -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -DTOOLCHAIN_MISS_ASM_HWCAP_H

[Bug c++/110622] x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- For reference: * https://github.com/google/highway/issues/1488#issuecomment-1621528097

[Bug c++/110622] New: x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

2023-07-11 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622 Bug ID: 110622 Summary: x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working) Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/110560] internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.cc:2704

2023-07-05 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110560 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55476 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55476=edit preprocessed source

[Bug c/110560] New: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.cc:2704

2023-07-05 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110560 Bug ID: 110560 Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.cc:2704 Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/110280] internal compiler error: in const_unop, at fold-const.cc:1884

2023-06-16 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110280 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Created attachment 55340 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55340=edit preprocessed source

[Bug c/110280] New: internal compiler error: in const_unop, at fold-const.cc:1884

2023-06-16 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110280 Bug ID: 110280 Summary: internal compiler error: in const_unop, at fold-const.cc:1884 Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/110264] internal compiler error: src/gcc/toplev.cc:314

2023-06-15 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110264 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- This is not a duplicate of PR/109535 since I can compile the previously mentionned TU transform_test.cc just fine.

[Bug c++/110264] New: internal compiler error: src/gcc/toplev.cc:314

2023-06-15 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110264 Bug ID: 110264 Summary: internal compiler error: src/gcc/toplev.cc:314 Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/109535] [13/14] internal compiler error: in finalize_new_accesses, at rtl-ssa/changes.cc:471

2023-04-20 Thread malat at debian dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109535 --- Comment #12 from Mathieu Malaterre --- @JuzheZhong Technically you are supposed to simply remove the keyword '14' from the title and close when backported on 13...

  1   2   >