[Bug tree-optimization/111136] ICE in RISC-V test case since r14-3441-ga1558e9ad85693

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36 --- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp --- All gather-scatter tests pass for me again (the given example in particular) after applying this.

[Bug target/108271] Missed RVV cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108271 Robin Dapp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/111136] New: ICE in RISC-V test case since r14-3441-ga1558e9ad85693

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36 Bug ID: 36 Summary: ICE in RISC-V test case since r14-3441-ga1558e9ad85693 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/108412] RISC-V: Negative optimization of GCSE && LOOP INVARIANTS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108412 Robin Dapp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/110559] Bad mask_load/mask_store codegen of RVV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110559 --- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp --- This can be improved in parts by enabling register-pressure aware scheduling. The rest is due to the default issue rate of 1. Setting proper instruction latency will then obviously cause a bit more reordering

[Bug tree-optimization/100756] [12 Regression] vect: Superfluous epilog created on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100756 --- Comment #8 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- For completeness: haven't observed any fallout on s390 since and the regression is fixed.

[Bug middle-end/107617] SCC-VN with len_store and big endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107617 --- Comment #1 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- For completeness, the mailing list thread is here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/602252.html

[Bug middle-end/107617] SCC-VN with len_store and big endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107617 rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug middle-end/107617] New: SCC-VN with len_store and big endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107617 Bug ID: 107617 Summary: SCC-VN with len_store and big endian Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug tree-optimization/100756] vect: Superfluous epilog created on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100756 rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/106919] [13 Regression] RTL check: expected code 'set' or 'clobber', have 'if_then_else' in s390_rtx_costs, at config/s390/s390.cc:3672on s390x-linux-gnu since r13-2251-g1930c5d05ceff2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106919 --- Comment #8 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes, one of dst and dest is superflous. Looks good like that. I bootstrapped the same patch locally already, no regressions.

[Bug middle-end/91213] Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <= X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213 --- Comment #9 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- The regressions are unrelated and due to another patch that I still had on the same branch.

[Bug middle-end/91213] Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <= X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213 --- Comment #8 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hacked something together, inspired by the other cases that try two different sequences. Does this go into the right direction? Works for me on s390. I see some regressions related to predictive

[Bug middle-end/91213] Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <= X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213 rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/106701] Compiler does not take into account number range limitation to avoid subtract from immediate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106701 --- Comment #3 from rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org --- I though expand (or combine) were independent of value range. What would be the proper place for it then?

[Bug target/106701] Compiler does not take into account number range limitation to avoid subtract from immediate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106701 rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|s390|s390 x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug rtl-optimization/105988] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in linemap_ordinary_map_lookup, at libcpp/line-map.cc:1064 since r6-4873-gebedc9a3414d8422

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105988 rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu s390 ---

[Bug middle-end/106527] New: ICE with modulo scheduling dump (-fdump-rtl-sms)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106527 Bug ID: 106527 Summary: ICE with modulo scheduling dump (-fdump-rtl-sms) Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

<    1   2   3