https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109327
Bug ID: 109327
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O1 and above with
"-fno-tree-ccp": Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Steve Thompson from comment #3)
> However I don't understand why olock_reset_op() is so large. It's
> a trivial initializer for a descriptor with an array of olock_op_element
> structures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326
--- Comment #3 from Steve Thompson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> init_olock_op_element_struct asm output looks fine to me:
>
> movzwl .LC0(%rip), %eax
> movq$0, (%rdi)
> movq$0, 8(%rdi)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91293ffb6af18705ab7857dc47656bdd74a9ce31
commit r13-6922-g91293ffb6af18705ab7857dc47656bdd74a9ce31
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91293ffb6af18705ab7857dc47656bdd74a9ce31
commit r13-6922-g91293ffb6af18705ab7857dc47656bdd74a9ce31
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109325
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note if you are disassemblying the object file with objdump -d, you might want
to add the -r option to enable dumping of the relocations that are produced
too. In the init_olock_op_struct case you miss the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326
Bug ID: 109326
Summary: Bad assembler code generation for valid C on 886-64
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109256
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |MOVED
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109325
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54781=edit
warpers.cpp.ii.xz
Originally reported by Adrien Dessemond at
https://bugs.gentoo.org/903505.
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109325
Bug ID: 109325
Summary: ICE in range_def_chain::in_chain_ when building opencv
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109324
Bug ID: 109324
Summary: Genrecog reports "source missing a mode?" for H8
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108118
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:629ed996f32cb03dd712789eede1f7f2036e497b
commit r12-9351-g629ed996f32cb03dd712789eede1f7f2036e497b
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108554
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fdfa3768b25c85df39eaf9b850e130e42a4dd6f
commit r12-9345-g2fdfa3768b25c85df39eaf9b850e130e42a4dd6f
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109299
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00ac6fa3f2a54fb9cc17b7b7f51eae3c6bf7a1bd
commit r12-9330-g00ac6fa3f2a54fb9cc17b7b7f51eae3c6bf7a1bd
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108413
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:83487e1f0c380859ed2dab2892afa8651d267fb3
commit r12-9327-g83487e1f0c380859ed2dab2892afa8651d267fb3
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec12639c82e944d37200a744156e183ea19add00
commit r13-6918-gec12639c82e944d37200a744156e183ea19add00
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109161
Nix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
--- Comment #2 from Nix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323
Bug ID: 109323
Summary: No error when neither of return_value or return_void
is defined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
Bug ID: 109322
Summary: -fc-prototypes does not correctly translate
INTEGER(KIND=C_SIZE_T), and other sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #37 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54780=edit
in progress patch
Well call me a liar.
It took me a while to understand why, but if we leave it to single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109299
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf78b43873b0b7e8f9a430df38749b8b61f9c9b8
commit r13-6915-gbf78b43873b0b7e8f9a430df38749b8b61f9c9b8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109288
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf19ef9eca82b01dd0a3a0a8e4c8bcec236eb2d9
commit r13-6914-gcf19ef9eca82b01dd0a3a0a8e4c8bcec236eb2d9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Alisdair Meredith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alisdairm at me dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Seems broken with gcc-12-20211003.
Git hashes seem to be g:c3d3bb0f03dbd025 and g:d91056851c5c60f2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-28
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109319
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Bug ID: 109321
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in iterative_hash_template_arg, at
cp/pt.cc:1727
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Bug ID: 109320
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in coerce_template_parameter_pack,
at cp/pt.cc:8795
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109319
Bug ID: 109319
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in build_min_non_dep_op_overload,
at cp/tree.cc:3793
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107002
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Program seems fine with gcc-11-20210404, but goes wrong with gcc-12-20220403.
$ ~/gcc/results.20210404/bin/gcc -w -O1 -fipa-cp bug903.c
$ ./a.out
checksum = FC4F321
$ ~/gcc/results.20220403/bin/gcc -w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107002
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22c3a6c3c118283dfef1b9928dd21110098679b7
commit r13-6912-g22c3a6c3c118283dfef1b9928dd21110098679b7
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109313
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
When ccp3 changes (correctly):
[local count: 958878296]:
.ASAN_MARK (POISON, , 4);
[/app/example.cpp:6:24] b.1_2 = b;
[/app/example.cpp:6:24] _3 = b.1_2 + 1;
[/app/example.cpp:6:24] b = _3;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
In gdb:
gdb) r 1
Starting program: /home/dcb36/csmith/a.out 1
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
Program received signal SIGSEGV,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
Bug ID: 109318
Summary: csmith: -fipa-cp seems to cause trouble
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This fixes the testcase, but I'll check for other problems using the cached
facets:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/ostream.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/ostream.tcc
@@ -69,7 +69,12 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #36 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > I will poke at whether its possible to cheaply handle a second (or third)
> > level for single dependency
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Charles-Henri Gros from comment #7)
> For context, we're trying to detect cases where using "auto" unintentionally
> creates a copy (it's regrettably common).
> Here the copy is necessary to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Removing it would make the code less efficient and more complex.
In fact, I don't even see how it would be possible, except by making *another*
copy, e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107002
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 54778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54778=edit
Untested patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> David, any progress here?
I've currently testing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109317
Bug ID: 109317
Summary: -Os generates bigger code than -O2 on 32-bit ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
--- Comment #7 from Charles-Henri Gros ---
For context, we're trying to detect cases where using "auto" unintentionally
creates a copy (it's regrettably common).
Here the copy is necessary to get a non-const value; that's definitely
something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For your reproducer, the allocator is std::allocator which is an empty
class and copying is a no-op. There is no efficiency concern whatsoever.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109305
--- Comment #4 from Marc-André Laverdière ---
The comment is "If this allocation throws there are no effects:" and I didn't
understand the implications. Thanks for you spelled it out the logic behind it.
May I encourage you to update the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> I will poke at whether its possible to cheaply handle a second (or third)
> level for single dependency defs.
Will those include also binary ops which have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #32)
> > We could in theory expand it to look at 2 levels if its a single operand...
>
> Yeah, that would help here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109309
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109309
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af45b17d0a8fe3e7ae08662008a1f41e48a4a3eb
commit r13-6911-gaf45b17d0a8fe3e7ae08662008a1f41e48a4a3eb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #32)
> We could in theory expand it to look at 2 levels if its a single operand...
Yeah, that would help here and could be worth it.
> which will help with some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Macleod ---
The issues is here is pruning to avoid significant time growth.
_1 = (float) l_11(D);
_2 = _1 < 0.0;
zone1_12 = (int) _2;
if (_1 < 0.0)
goto ; [INV]
_1 is an export from the block. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107163
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e8fc610fb7112deb8c33c673a52983368dde9b7
commit r13-6910-g0e8fc610fb7112deb8c33c673a52983368dde9b7
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109312
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109315
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And that's because we're using the ostream's cached _M_num_put but that is the
wrong one:
(gdb) step
std::basic_ostream >::_M_insert<__ieee128>
(this=0x101c0900 ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109312
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a923516ae61ddc6dd863891db13189cbf392411
commit r13-6909-g5a923516ae61ddc6dd863891db13189cbf392411
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106124
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I suppose that's the OMP reduction function and that's always(?) inlined?
The reduction "function" is something artificial which holds some expressions
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK, I see what's happening now:
Breakpoint 3.3, std::__gnu_cxx_ldbl128::num_put > >::num_put (
this=0x101c1f98 <(anonymous namespace)::num_put_c>, __refs=1)
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the #c28 testcase, my #c23 patch seems to improve something only visible in
the details of the evrp dump:
zone1_12 : [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1
-2->3 (T) _1 : [frange] float [-Inf, -0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109187
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109187
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexander Monakov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb046e69f0ed2d637ea715ae71ad50131f30cb2d
commit r13-6907-gfb046e69f0ed2d637ea715ae71ad50131f30cb2d
Author: Alexander Monakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But at least the zone1_100 stuff is unused in #c26, so improving #c28 there
wouldn't help.
distbb_99 = distij_98 - radij_82;
_27 = distbb_99 < 0.0;
# RANGE [irange] const int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109265
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd63bba0c8dc3a6ae06cfdc084bca7c68b8bbd39
commit r13-6906-gdd63bba0c8dc3a6ae06cfdc084bca7c68b8bbd39
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd63bba0c8dc3a6ae06cfdc084bca7c68b8bbd39
commit r13-6906-gdd63bba0c8dc3a6ae06cfdc084bca7c68b8bbd39
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109316
Bug ID: 109316
Summary: incorrect "warning: declaration does not declare
anything" for anonymous enums in structs, for
-std=(gnu|c)-17
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 107087, which changed state.
Bug 107087 Summary: [13 Regression] bits/stl_algobase.h:431: warning: 'void*
__builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, unsigned int)' reading between 8 and
2147483644 bytes from a region of size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b9d76c1af189b918a9970f471e6d2e2c08f7e7d
commit r13-6905-g2b9d76c1af189b918a9970f471e6d2e2c08f7e7d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Macleod ---
The upcoming patch for 109274 should resolve this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
For the testcase in comment#26 we see that if-conversion from
if (distbb_170 >= 0.0)
goto ; [59.00%]
else
goto ; [41.00%]
[local count: 311875831]:
...
if (distbb_170 < iftmp.0_97)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109309
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109072
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] SLP |[12 Regression] SLP costs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109308
--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
This kinda has happened before:
https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/20678
Should we keep this bug open for the message, which is obviously wrong?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
So as for what ranger should get, the testcase in comment#2 after EVRP still
sees
:
_1 = (float) l_10;
_2 = _1 < 0.0;
zone1_17 = (int) _2;
if (_1 < 0.0)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
I've added heuristics to threading to PR109048 but I think it's too strong to
reject them.
For the testcase in this PR ranger could fix up if it managed to properly
propagate the singleton range early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above slightly simplified (dead var removal, preprocessing etc.):
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__)) _Atom { float x, y, z; int type; }
Atom;
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109072
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fcb411564a655a01f759eea3bb16bfd1bc879bfd
commit r13-6903-gfcb411564a655a01f759eea3bb16bfd1bc879bfd
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
