[Bug tree-optimization/79262] New: [6/7 Regression] load gap with store gap causing performance regression in 462.libquantum

2017-01-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262 Bug ID: 79262 Summary: [6/7 Regression] load gap with store gap causing performance regression in 462.libquantum Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED K

[Bug tree-optimization/79262] [6/7 Regression] load gap with store gap causing performance regression in 462.libquantum

2017-01-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.4

[Bug tree-optimization/18438] vectorizer failed for vector matrix multiplication

2017-01-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18438 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #12) > You are making an orthogonal point to this bug report: whether or not to > vectorize such a loop. But if loop is vectorized, then on any > microarchitecture

[Bug tree-optimization/79262] [6/7 Regression] load gap with store gap causing performance regression in 462.libquantum

2017-01-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 40612 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40612&action=edit The vector cost model improvement for ThunderX2 CN99xx This changes the vector cost model to be more correct fo

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Known to work|

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another variant, which removes the naming collision (and dimension attribute) in the character components, in order to make things clearer: program main_ut implicit none type :: data_t c

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #8) > Or maybe we should rather call the finalization wrapper for the type > 'data_t' That's also what's happening to 'par_real' in the following case: subroutin

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #8) > Another variant, which removes the naming collision (and dimension > attribute) in the character components, in order to make things clearer: > > > program m

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread juergen.reuter at desy dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter --- (In reply to janus from comment #7) > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #5) > > Here is the promised reduced test case, 80 lines, and I do believe that this > > is most likely causing the issues of all

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3) > The problem seems located to the file evaluators_uti.f90 and occurred > between revisions r243430 (2016-12-08, OK) and r243621 (2016-12-13, > s

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The problem seems located to the file evaluators_uti.f90 and occurred > between revisions r243430 (2016-12-08, OK) and r243621 (2016-12-13, > segfault). Could it be r243483 (pr61767)?

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #12) > r243483: > 2016-12-09 Janus Weil > > PR fortran/61767 > * class.c (has_finalizer_component): Fix this function to detect only > non-poin

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug middle-end/68664] [6/7 Regression] Speculative sqrt in c-ray main loop causes large slow down

2017-01-28 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug middle-end/68664] [6/7 Regression] Speculative sqrt in c-ray main loop causes large slow down

2017-01-28 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664 --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez --- FYI, on aarch64, the problem can be reproduced with: ./cc1 -quiet -I./ a.c -O3 -ffast-math -mcpu=cortex-a53 on ppc64 with: ./cc1 -quiet -I./ a.c -O3 -ffast-math

[Bug middle-end/68664] [6/7 Regression] Speculative sqrt in c-ray main loop causes large slow down

2017-01-28 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664 --- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 40613 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40613&action=edit preprocessed testcase for reproducing on ppc64 and aarch64

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #15) > r243479 shows no runtime error, r243480 does. The dump with r243479 is identical to 6.2. So r243480 does actually improve the situation, but fails to handle

[Bug sanitizer/78663] [7 Regression] Hundreds of asan failures on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r243019

2017-01-28 Thread iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663 --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Have you raised this with compiler-rt upstream already? I don't believe that upstream supports the sanitisers for Darwin < 11. However, as seen, they are quite ca

[Bug rtl-optimization/64895] RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra

2017-01-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Between revisions r244915 and r244957 I got the following XPASS XPASS: gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c scan-assembler-not pop XPASS: gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c scan-assembler-not p

[Bug rtl-optimization/64895] RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra

2017-01-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895 --- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Between revisions r244915 and r244957 I got the following XPASS I have forgotten to say that it is on x86_64-apple-darwin16.

[Bug rtl-optimization/79263] New: Several tests introduced in r244878 fail with -m32

2017-01-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79263 Bug ID: 79263 Summary: Several tests introduced in r244878 fail with -m32 Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug testsuite/70583] [6/7 Regression] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.abi/vtable2.C -std=gnu++98 execution test

2017-01-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70583 --- Comment #10 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Sat Jan 28 18:01:22 2017 New Revision: 245007 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245007&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR testsuite/70583 * g++.old-deja/g++.abi/vtable2.C

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #17 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ok, being the offender I tried to have a look into as soon as possible.

[Bug testsuite/70583] [6/7 Regression] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.abi/vtable2.C -std=gnu++98 execution test

2017-01-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70583 --- Comment #11 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Sat Jan 28 18:08:22 2017 New Revision: 245008 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245008&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR testsuite/70583 * g++.old-deja/g++.abi/vtable2.C

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

2017-01-28 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/70583] [6/7 Regression] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.abi/vtable2.C -std=gnu++98 execution test

2017-01-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70583 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/79230] [7 Regression] [OOP] Run time error: double free or corruption

2017-01-28 Thread vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230 --- Comment #18 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Correct me when I am wrong, but should the pointer component really be finalized automatically? I am in the opinion that pointer components are not finalized automatically. That is one of the signi

[Bug c++/79264] New: ICE verify_type failed

2017-01-28 Thread guille at berkeley dot edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79264 Bug ID: 79264 Summary: ICE verify_type failed Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

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

2017-01-28 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- One thing I noticed that suggests another possible (and, IMO, the ideal for this specific case) solution: the warning goes away and GCC emits far better code when the controlling expression of the loop is (i !

[Bug sanitizer/79265] New: -fsanitize=undefined inserts unnecessary null pointer tests

2017-01-28 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265 Bug ID: 79265 Summary: -fsanitize=undefined inserts unnecessary null pointer tests Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c/79266] New: excessive compile time for large static array (-O1)

2017-01-28 Thread josh at joshtriplett dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79266 Bug ID: 79266 Summary: excessive compile time for large static array (-O1) Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/79266] excessive compile time for large static array (-O1)

2017-01-28 Thread josh at joshtriplett dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79266 --- Comment #1 from Josh Triplett --- Following up: it looks like gcc -O1 does eventually complete, after several minutes. -O3 is still running.

[Bug c/79266] excessive compile time for large static array (-O1)

2017-01-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79266 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- There might be a dup of this bug just filed a few days ago and that was marked as a dup too.

[Bug target/70012] test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-33.c fails

2017-01-28 Thread iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70012 --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #4) > Created attachment 40568 [details] > Proposed patch > > Attaching proposed patch. Iain, would you be able to test this on Darwin > 32- and 64-bit and see whether i

[Bug libstdc++/71090] #include cannot locate math.h

2017-01-28 Thread sebastian.bw at freenet dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71090 bastl73 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sebastian.bw at freenet dot de --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

2017-01-28 Thread tetra2005 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5) > PR 67731 maybe related or dup? Related but not a dup. This bug is caused by frontend folding two bitfield accesses to a single comparison which prevented generation of

[Bug libstdc++/71090] #include cannot locate math.h

2017-01-28 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71090 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- If you mess with the order of system header directories then you mess up how headers are found. So don't do that.