https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Bug ID: 104345
Summary: nvptx: "regression" after "nvptx: Transition nvptx
backend to STORE_FLAG_VALUE = 1"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Should be fixed in trunk, and gcc-10 & 11 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think to_widest only works with INTEGER_CSTs, to do the comparisons (or have
?h_range be widest_int), we'd need to use widest_int::from I think.
Anyway, with the above patch I've built so far stage2
movd eax, xmm0
ret
Godbolt example:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/bn9xq1b56
Gcc details follow, captured by adding "-v" to my command-line:
===
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapsho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> So, I think one way is to punt on these small precision types, like:
> --- range-op.cc.jj1 2022-01-13 22:29:15.345831749 +0100
> +++ range-op.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104343
Bug ID: 104343
Summary: Too many arguments error reported for a
variadic-argument function if std::endl is passed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104333
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
I can just confirm that using tree-vrp.o from stage1 fixes the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I think one way is to punt on these small precision types, like:
--- range-op.cc.jj1 2022-01-13 22:29:15.345831749 +0100
+++ range-op.cc 2022-02-02 13:44:05.813637820 +0100
@@ -148,11 +148,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] Ranger/dom |[12 Regression] Ranger/dom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> And another question is, the 2, 3, 4 cases handling seems like an
> optimization, > so wi_fold at line 192 should give the right answer, but it
> doesn't.
Actually no, I misunderstood, with -O0 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
>
> --- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100678
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100678
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
This testcase should be passing since commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=e0451f93d9faa13495132f4e246e9bef30b51417
([nvptx] Add some support for .local atomics).
It's possible that we'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The difference might be in:
> 1938/* Optimize comparisons with constants. */
> 1939if (STATIC_CONSTANT_P (yi.len == 1 && yi.val[0] >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100428
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104342
Bug ID: 104342
Summary: ICE with -gnata -fcallgraph-info=su
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now verified, in the LTO case both wi::gt_p/wi::gtu_p and wi::lt_p/wi::ltu_p
are inlined and do:
0x0191600e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
So target specific option mismatch is caused by:
static const struct default_options s390_option_optimization_table[] =
{
...
/* Use MVCLE instructions to decrease code size if requested. */
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94372
Stafford Horne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94372
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stafford Horne :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cac2f69cdad434ad5cb60f5fe931d45cd82ef476
commit r12-6996-gcac2f69cdad434ad5cb60f5fe931d45cd82ef476
Author: Bernd Kuhls
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f6f411f63f3aceddd846e4b0d27202a6e13d42c
commit r12-6995-g9f6f411f63f3aceddd846e4b0d27202a6e13d42c
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f6f411f63f3aceddd846e4b0d27202a6e13d42c
commit r12-6995-g9f6f411f63f3aceddd846e4b0d27202a6e13d42c
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab95fe61fea38fbac7f4e00abd32c2530532351a
commit r12-6994-gab95fe61fea38fbac7f4e00abd32c2530532351a
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab95fe61fea38fbac7f4e00abd32c2530532351a
commit r12-6994-gab95fe61fea38fbac7f4e00abd32c2530532351a
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55d83cdf23b5f284b4e0bd0a6d1af3d947b2e7c3
commit r12-6993-g55d83cdf23b5f284b4e0bd0a6d1af3d947b2e7c3
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55d83cdf23b5f284b4e0bd0a6d1af3d947b2e7c3
commit r12-6993-g55d83cdf23b5f284b4e0bd0a6d1af3d947b2e7c3
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, in the debugger the difference is in the range_operator::wi_fold_in_parts
function (with:
enum class A { A0, A1, A2, A3 };
int x;
void baz ();
struct B {
unsigned b : 2;
A
foo () const
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
If there is a way to test adding -fno-ipa-modref to the bootstrap. That or
-fno-tree-vectorize. I suspect it is one of those two since those were the
areas that changed the most for the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104289
--- Comment #2 from eric.pouech at orange dot fr ---
Thx for looking into it.
For sake of completeness, clang supports it flawlessly.
[eric]$ clang -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits -c b2.c
b2.c:9:28: warning: format specifies type 'int' but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104333
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104333
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I think the proper fix is reversion of the commit.
What do you think Nathan?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104341
Bug ID: 104341
Summary: Bogus -Werror=array-bounds since
r12-2582-gb9cbf8c9e0bc72f5
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104333
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c9494533a78df07f2b32097fe1e78f68369dc94
commit r10-10432-g9c9494533a78df07f2b32097fe1e78f68369dc94
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104324
--- Comment #3 from gcc-v850-bugs at engineer dot com ---
Thanks for the response! I just managed to build gcc 4.9.2 (using binutils
2.25) and the issue is still present, which is obvious with your input. I will
look in the binutils direction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
This also causes a lot of packages to fail to build with undefined references
to the libatomic libcalls.
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
