https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
> The XPASS:es seem to be the same for everyone, with the FAIL only appearing
> on ILP32.
>
> Aldy, how about correcting those xfail markers and adding one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106239
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2033
Officially made it CopyInsertable:
Requires: T shall be MoveInsertable into *this and CopyInsertable into *this.
CopyInsertable is basically:
::new((void*)p) T(v)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106239
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/resize (I know exactly not
the C++ standard but usually gives a good summary of it):
-T must meet the requirements of CopyInsertable in order to use ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106240
Bug ID: 106240
Summary: [13 Regression] Recent change causes missed
vectorization opportunity on mips
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106239
Bug ID: 106239
Summary: vector::resize(size_type, const value_type&) should
not require copy-assignability
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106087
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.0, 13.0
Summary|[12/13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106087
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71e3daa31cfa35ee58e5899cb00767be92227fd2
commit r13-1581-g71e3daa31cfa35ee58e5899cb00767be92227fd2
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
The XPASS:es seem to be the same for everyone, with the FAIL only appearing on
ILP32.
Aldy, how about correcting those xfail markers and adding one for ILP32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106238
Bug ID: 106238
Summary: Inline optimization causes dangling pointer on
"include/c++/12.1.0/bits/stl_tree.h"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83473
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95375
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106170
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > > So it does not matter not for adding locks for windows hosts? No need for
> > > using CriticalSection APIs as lock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106170
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > So it does not matter not for adding locks for windows hosts? No need for
> > using CriticalSection APIs as locks?
>
> Well, we need the critical section for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||71775
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106237
Bug ID: 106237
Summary: [13 regression] serveral tests begin ICEing starting
with r13-1575-gcf3a120084e946
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pavel M from comment #7)
> May be useful: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/new-code-optimizer.
> Search for "Bit Estimator" section containing "Folding comparisons and
> branches".
All of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106234
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 53281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53281&action=edit
proposed patch
we're having some connection issues, but I am in the process of trying to test
the attached p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #23 from Jan Wassenberg ---
Thanks for having a look. For casting, we CopyBytes between the two
representations, which boils down to __builtin_memcpy
(https://github.com/google/highway/blob/master/hwy/base.h#L819). Is there some
othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are some test cases that started ICEing with r13-1575-gcf3a120084e946
which fail at the same place in tree-vectorizer.cc:1032. These fail on LE on
power 8/9/10.
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106236
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the jumps are not the issue here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
I posted a prototype implementation of this here:
"[PATCH 00/12] RFC: Replay of serialized diagnostics"
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/597051.html
(doesn't fully work; see the many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #22 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I notice that the sources seem to do floating-point negation by casting values
to integers, xor-ing the sign bit and then casting the result back to a float.
This is exactly the sort of operation that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #21 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I've finally managed to reproduce the test failure (someone has turned off
emu128 in the sources I have).
Rebuilding the failing test with -fno-strict-aliasing causes the test to pass.
That strongly su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106064
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #10)
> The configure options may be making a difference. Here are the ones I was
> using: --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --with-cpu=power7
> --disable-bootstrap --enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #10 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The configure options may be making a difference. Here are the ones I was
using: --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --with-cpu=power7 --disable-bootstrap
--enable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 53280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53280&action=edit
Preprocessed test case
Here is the preprocessed source file that shows the ICE:
seurer@bns:/tmp$ /home/seurer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106216
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106216
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b984b84cbe4bf026edef2ba37685f3958a1dc1cf
commit r13-1578-gb984b84cbe4bf026edef2ba37685f3958a1dc1cf
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
Please provide preprocessed source
> Am 08.07.2022 um 17:32 schrieb seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
>
> --- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is still failing though it looks like at a slightly different point:
libtool: compile: /home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/./gcc/
-B/home/seur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #20 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
The Debian package highway 0.17.0-9 is not build with neon option (aka ARM7=OFF
in cmake), the code build just fine and test suite run fine (-O1):
*
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=highw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Hmm, I'm not sure that makes sense to me. AFAICT highway requires an Arm CPU
with Neon, but the default compiler flags that you posted (-mthumb
-march=armv7-a+fp) does not provide that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733
--- Comment #7 from Akim Demaille ---
Personally the bug I reported was the one you fixed. I merely suggested to
drop \r, but I did asked for that. So AFAIC, you may close this issue.
Thanks a lot for the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106236
Bug ID: 106236
Summary: Not a bug, bad performance (with GCC 11.3.0 - O3) of a
small etude in C
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #18 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
The complete line to generate the *.ii file is:
```
% /usr/bin/g++ -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -I/home/malat/highway -O2 -fstrict-aliasing
-ggdb3 -fPIE -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
-Wno-buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And what options are you passing to cmake?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733
--- Comment #6 from Lewis Hyatt ---
The diagnostics issue is fixed now. Do we want to mark this resolved, or keep
it open given the other question regarding support for \r line endings in
general?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bd15617e73acf76207127e5580cd10b1fab91a5
commit r13-1577-g2bd15617e73acf76207127e5580cd10b1fab91a5
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Thu Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #19 from Chris Clayton ---
Hi
On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #16 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
This is one is producing wrong code:
% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/11/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106235
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Juliet 1.3 has various testcases for this in
C/testcases/CWE617_Reachable_Assertion/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12/13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106235
Bug ID: 106235
Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer could complain about tainted data
triggering assertion failure
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
What's the output of "gcc -v" for the failing compiler(s)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106234
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod ---
> it looks like range_from_dom walks up immediate dominators but in that loop
> recurses to itself!? isn't that quadratic? shouldn't the recursion stop
> at the next immediate dominator of the recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106234
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106233
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106233
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106234
Bug ID: 106234
Summary: [13 Regression] stack overflow from range_from_dom
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106196
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103438
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcn at onet dot pl
--- Comment #17 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106173
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105918
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-08
Keywords|needs-bise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106233
Bug ID: 106233
Summary: Designated initializers targeting inherited fields
breaks reshape_init_class, at cp/decl.c:6456
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106196
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> > Some benchmarks are still failing with the same error, just different line
> > I am reducing a testcase now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|
|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106196
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> Some benchmarks are still failing with the same error, just different line
> numbers
>
> during GIMPLE pass: vect
> include/dofs/dof_tools.h: In function 'ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106196
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106132
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106132
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6da7f7c5ac03f85a753989712588511e5f56e73d
commit r13-1576-g6da7f7c5ac03f85a753989712588511e5f56e73d
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106226
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf3a120084e94614a4917f71940325cd4b537f24
commit r13-1575-gcf3a120084e94614a4917f71940325cd4b537f24
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Grund ---
Hi,
it's more than 1 year later now. Peter seemingly has a simple reproducer.
Is there anything new on this? Any patch to fix that or at least anything to
try or a workaround like disabling a specific opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
> Sorry, it not a bug, got to know that switch lower and switch conversion are
> doing two different things, different with "pass_lower_switch
> also performs the transforms switch-conversion does" in c#4?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106232
Bug ID: 106232
Summary: stack exhausted when using '-s dlang' in d-demangle.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
--- Comment #7 from Pavel M ---
May be useful: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/new-code-optimizer.
Search for "Bit Estimator" section containing "Folding comparisons and
branches".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #14 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
@Richard
I've uploaded the generated *.ii files (-save-temps), as discussed with
upstream:
* https://github.com/google/highway/issues/776#issuecomment-1177864014
I do not know the codebase very well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #13 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 53277
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53277&action=edit
gcc-12 -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53271|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106231
Bug ID: 106231
Summary: sign-extension of the result of `__builtin_tzcnt()`
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101691
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106226
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hm, there's .LOAD_LANES. OK, so the present spot for updating virtual SSA form
is where we think we need it but that might be when analyzing a totally
different
loop for vectorization.
I'm testing a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106170
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> So it does not matter not for adding locks for windows hosts? No need for
> using CriticalSection APIs as locks?
Well, we need the critical section for the multi-threaded linker mold for that
we define a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106063
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7854e2faf7640230062dec3596e71773ca500ed
commit r13-1573-gf7854e2faf7640230062dec3596e71773ca500ed
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-08
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Clang does build with the original (folly) if I don't preprocess it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106227
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Ignore me on the last part re Clang. It doesn't build there either with the
reduced version or original because of fortify bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53275&action=edit
ccHXKhJc.ii (minimised reproducer)
I think I need to re-run cvise because the minimised version doesn't build with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
Bug ID: 106230
Summary: ICE when building folly-2022.07.04.00 in
pop_local_binding (cp/name-lookup.cc:2474)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
93 matches
Mail list logo
