https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105612
Bug 105612 depends on bug 116069, which changed state.
Bug 116069 Summary: tautological-compare warnings observed only with -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116069
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116069
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This happens IIRC tracking from macros is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116076
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Might be:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=1e3aa9c9278db69d4bdb661a750a7268789188d6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107211
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tymi from comment #6)
> And just as an addition, it always yields true.
> For example here:
> ```cpp
> int awoo(void) noexcept(false);
> int awoo(int) noexcept(false);
>
> int main(void)
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|ice during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116064
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way Xalan even upstream still has this bug.
https://github.com/apache/xalan-c/blob/c326619da4813acfc845c2830d904a4860f9afe1/src/xalanc/XMLSupport/XalanOtherEncodingWriter.hpp#L323
They do have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116075
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Short not using the vectorizer testcase:
```
#include
svint8_t f(void)
{
svint8_t tt;
tt = svdup_s8 (0);
tt = svinsr (tt, 0);
return tt;
}
```
Note LLVM does not optimize the above to just `mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116072
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also what glibc version is on the system? Since if it is std::find that is
causing the regression memchr was improved in the last year or so in glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87985
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems to regressed again on the trunk for aarch64 (didn't check x86_64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Bug 94404 depends on bug 116077, which changed state.
Bug 116077 Summary: GCC hasn't implemented CWG DR 2387
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116077
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116059
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #4)
> Strange, Andrew's comment didn't reach my inbox while both of Patrick's did.
Are you subscribed to gcc-bugs@ if not then you were added to the CC after my
comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116074
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
opt_machine_mode
related_int_vector_mode (machine_mode vector_mode)
{
gcc_assert (VECTOR_MODE_P (vector_mode));
So it is not passing a vector type here ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116052
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am reducing but it is going slowly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115961
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Bug 115086 depends on bug 115961, which changed state.
Bug 115961 Summary: [15 Regression] wrong code on llvm-18.1.8 since
r15-1936-g80e446e829d818 with bitfields less than the type mode precision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116063
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hubert Tong from comment #2)
> If it is invalid, a diagnostic like this should appear:
> ```
> warning: union cannot be made transparent
> ```
Not always.
typedef union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116063
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Common-Type-Attributes.html):
Second, the argument is passed to the function using the calling conventions of
the first member of the transparent union,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58745=edit
Try2
This fixes the disconnect between genorg and genemit inside genemit's removing
the explicit PARALLEL when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So from what I can tell is happening is
recog_level2 (in rtl-ssa/changes.cc)
calls recog:
icode = ::recog (pat, rtl, _clobbers);
num_clobbers is greater than 0 and then we remove the clobbers inside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116043
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> This caused by r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593.
exposed by because that just changed the register allocation allocation really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58744=edit
Patch which seems to fix the issue
This patch removes the parallel in the define_insn and seems to fix the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
trying to combine definition of r8 in:
```
2004: r8:SI=r2:SI
into:
725: {[r4:SI]=[r5:SI];use r8:SI;use 0;use r6:SI;clobber pr:SI;clobber
t:SI;clobber r4:SI;clobber r5:SI;clobber r6:SI;clobber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
from reading the code, this means add_clobbers was called on an unrecognized
insn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miscompilation of nodejs|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu |aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question comes is this defined or undefined?
I think it is still undefined.
Changing:
Maybe() : has_value_(false) {}
into:
Maybe() : has_value_(false), value_() {}
Makes this well defined.
And has no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the full preprocessed source instead of just linking?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the original code that was failing since the reduced one is
questionable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So this code might have undefined behavior. At the very least it is
questionable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
#define vect8 __attribute__((vector_size(8)))
vect8 int f(int a)
{
int b;
vect int t={1,1};
if(a) return t;
return (vect8 int){0, b};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
g:33c2b70dbabc02788caabcbc66b7baeafeb95bcf
That just changed the cost model.
Most likely could be reproduced with -fno-cost-model beforehand.
Note there is an unitialized usage on one side of the if so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ovidiu.panait at windriver dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116047
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Wrong one.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 108900 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ovidiu.panait at windriver dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116050
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106783
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> The problem is that n/=0 is undefined behavior (so we can optimize out call
> to function doing divide by zero), while __builtin_trap is observable and we
> do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116055
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58737|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116054
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58737
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58737=edit
testcase from godbolt
Please next time attach or put the testcase inline instead of just linking to
godbolt .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/rq67M |
|nsrr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116052
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58736
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58736=edit
preprocessed testcase from godbolt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||115961
--- Comment #13 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I attached my patches to PR 115086 which fixes this for aarch64. All that
is needed after these patches get approved is either rename the current
patterns in the i386 backend to be andn3 and iorn3 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58726|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I have patches for part of this, though the optabs need to be renamed so the
> backend changes have to wait until I finish that. and I need to also match
> ~(a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58728=edit
Patch that goes on top of the rest
This will fix the testcase in comment #10. It does fix the vector type one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
unsigned test1(unsigned value)
{
return ~(value | 0xf);
}
```
This one is reduced from PR 116013 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have patches for part of this, though the optabs need to be renamed so the
backend changes have to wait until I finish that. and I need to also match ~(a
| CST) into `BIT_ANDC (~CST, a)` which I will add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58726=edit
Current set of patches
This is the current set of patches but still need the optab name changes which
I will work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note andc optab was added with r15-1890-gf379596e0ba99d .
Note the c here will need to be changed as there is a mode called csi (which is
the complex si mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thiago Jung Bauermann from comment #3)
> Created attachment 58725 [details]
> mve-vabs.s generated by the test after commit c290e6a0b7a9.
>
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Bug ID: 116041
Summary: aarch64 fallout from removing vcond{,u,eq} patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > aarch64 reports just
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/if-compare_2.c check-function-bodies bar1
> > FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>A smaller reproduction without including the stdlib is:
While the original is accepted by clang, this one is rejected by clang. I have
not looked into why though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |ambiguous overload in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 58723 [details]
> gcc15-pr116034.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
This looks good to me. This is basically the same as the patch which I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the issue is in maybe_rewrite_mem_ref_base :
else if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (sym)) == COMPLEX_TYPE
&& useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (*tp),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Folding statement: _1 = + 1;
Queued stmt for removal. Folds to: <__complex__ short unsigned int>
[(void *) + 1B]
Folding statement: _3 = MEM [(char * {ref-all})_1];
Folded into: _3 = MEM [(char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> aarch64 reports just
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/if-compare_2.c check-function-bodies bar1
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/if-compare_2.c check-function-bodies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note andc optab was added with r15-1890-gf379596e0ba99d .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115033
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
> modref_eaf_analysis::analyze_ssa_name misinterprets EAF flags. If
> dereferenced
> parameter is passed (to map_iterator in the testcase) it can be returned
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116027
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O2 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 -flive-range-shrinkage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116026
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the documentation warns about this case
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html#index-fsanitize_003daddress
Note that sanitizers tend to increase the rate of false
1 - 100 of 24537 matches
Mail list logo
