https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88189
Bug ID: 88189
Summary: ix86_expand_sse_movcc and blend for scalars
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88188
Bug ID: 88188
Summary: ICE in print_operand, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sun Nov 25 05:46:44 2018
New Revision: 266435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-25 Vladimir Makarov
PR bootstrap/88157
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70694
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> Author: iains
> Date: Sat Aug 25 09:02:28 2018
> New Revision: 263850
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263850&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Don't force visibi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20181124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88141
--- Comment #5 from Joshua Morrison ---
It seems as though I misconfigured the repository when I pulled it via Git. The
line endings were being switched to CRLF instead of just LF, and that in turn
caused makeinfo to give the errors I was getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #9)
> Actually I think the usage in comment 8 is an intentional extension. There
> is a test in the dg test suite that does exactly this if I remember
> corre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #10 from Neil Carlson ---
Also a remark about the output of comment 7 just in case someone is thinking it
ought to say "&BAR" (like I was expecting/hoping when I started experimenting
with the original example). 13.11.3.1 says
1 I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88186
Bug ID: 88186
Summary: GCC Fails to optimize arithmetic progression
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
Actually I think the usage in comment 8 is an intentional extension. There is a
test in the dg test suite that does exactly this if I remember correctly. The
test was namelist_use.f90. I was told that gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As expected, the following invalid code via C8102 in F2018
compiles and executes
module foo_nml
implicit none
real :: x
namelist /foo/ x
end module
program main
use foo_nml
implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85644
--- Comment #8 from Mark Harris ---
Thanks for fixing this. I can confirm that with gcc trunk, -fstack-protector,
-fstack-protector-all, and -fstack-protector-strong are now working for me on
macOS 10.12.6, for both -m64 and -m32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> (In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> > Stated a bit more clearly, the question is, whether in
> >
> > The namelist-group-name shall not be a name acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 24 18:54:52 2018
New Revision: 266431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-24 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/88143
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 24 18:08:59 2018
New Revision: 266430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-24 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/88143
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87968
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88154
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #14 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #12)
> If we are right shifting a signed type, we could apply a MAX operation to the
> shift count.
Oops, I mean MIN of course. So that we can guar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
Bug ID: 88185
Summary: LTO merges -fPIC/fpie and -fPIE/-fpie options to
nothing - fails to warn when both are specified
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Grant ---
Hi Jonathan
Do you agree this warning output should be changed to clarify?
I understand your reply about it being non-POD when a C++ STL string is added.
Which adds the implicitly-defined copy constructor. Sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20181124 (experimental) [trunk revision 266426] (GCC)
$
$ g++tk -std=c++17 -c tmp.cpp
tmp.cpp: In function ‘void g()’:
tmp.cpp:10:9: error: expected primary-expression before ‘>’ token
10 | f < T > ();
| ^
tmp.cpp:10:12: error: expecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to janus from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > Please try kernel 4.17.xx or above.
>
> Unfortunately I can not easily test a newer kernel on that hardware right
> now :(
Please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Monakov ---
It seems like object file is not correctly assembled, note wrong offset to the
last instruction (movdqu):
.s:
vpgatherqd (%rax,%ymm3,4), %xmm4{%k4}
vpgatherqd (%rax,%ymm1,4),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #27 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45086
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45086&action=edit
object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88043
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to felix from comment #7)
> > I made the feature closely mimic The Other Compiler's behaviour: only
> > function built-ins are recognised. This incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #26 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #25)
> Created attachment 45085 [details]
> assembler output
In fact this seems to be identical to Jakub's assembly (except for filenames
and versions strings), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88099
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem ---
Additionally I tested compiling the GCC7 preprocessed source with GCC 8.2.1,
which expectedly leads to an ICE as well.
Simple attempts to trigger the same issue (e.g.
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/69
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45085&action=edit
assembler output
assembler output obtained from comment 0 via "gfortran-9 c0.f90
-march=skylake-avx5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183
--- Comment #1 from Ruben Van Boxem ---
Created attachment 45084
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45084&action=edit
compressed preprocessed source causing ICE
Attached preprocessed source file ICEs GCC 8.2.1 20180831 on Arch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183
Bug ID: 88183
Summary: [GCC7 Regression] Fold expression with operator .
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #24 from Alexander Monakov ---
Janus, can you attach your .s and .o files please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45083
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45083&action=edit
pr86735.s
Assembly I get which works for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fedora 27, kernel 4.16.4-200
Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7960X CPU
glibc 2.26-30, binutils, 2.29-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Tried again, this time on real hw (i9-7960X) and still can't reproduce,
Thanks for the data point, Jakub. Could you please share your kernel and glib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
--- Comment #9 from Christoph Conrads ---
nan-lhs.cpp with `float` instead of `double` triggers the same error messages
with `QNaNf` in place of `QNaN`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
--- Comment #8 from Christoph Conrads ---
Created attachment 45082
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45082&action=edit
nan-lhs.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
--- Comment #7 from Christoph Conrads ---
Created attachment 45081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45081&action=edit
nan-lhs.ii created by GCC 6.3.0 on Raspbian 9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Conrads ---
Created attachment 45080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45080&action=edit
nan-lhs.ii created by GCC 7.3.0 on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> Please try kernel 4.17.xx or above.
Unfortunately I can not easily test a newer kernel on that hardware right now
:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Conrads ---
Having read the comments, I began to modify code in the bug report. Apparently,
the bug is only triggered if QNaN is on the wrong side of the comparison
operator:
christoph:~$ cat nan-lhs.cpp
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
Bug ID: 88182
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in vectorizable_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.c:6465
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
--- Comment #4 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Sat Nov 24 09:51:03 2018
New Revision: 266429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/d/ChangeLog:
2018-11-24 Iain Buclaw
PR d/87
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #13 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
If the shifted value is 16 bit and int is 32 bit wide, then, depending
on target costs, instead of a vector compare, we might decide to use
a sign extract of bit 4 of the shift count instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> Author: pault
> Date: Sat Nov 24 09:10:00 2018
> New Revision: 266428
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266428&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2018-11-24 Paul Tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 24 09:10:00 2018
New Revision: 266428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-24 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/88143
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
If we are left shifting a narrow signed type for the result, and no defined
overflow semantics are in place, it should be OK to just vectorize the code
using the result type.
If we are right shifti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
55 matches
Mail list logo
