https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Bug ID: 114510
Summary: [14 Regression] missed proping of multiply by 2 into
address of load/stores
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114509
Bug ID: 114509
Summary: Infinite loop with openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114361
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|btf-debug, ctf-debug|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh it needs -g too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114508
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114508
Bug ID: 114508
Summary: Missed optimization of Dead Code Elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114507
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well the diagnostic part was PR 12411 :) (which I filed years ago and decided
to close as won't fix less than 3 years ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114506
--- Comment #3 from demin.han at starfivetech dot com ---
Hi,
I'm trying to fix this.
The reason is unnecessary live_range added in cost model
> -Original Message-
> From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
> Sent: 2024年3月28日 13:34
> To: demin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vt at altlinux dot org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114507
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
That said, I feel as if it's more likely this is better for the analyser.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114507
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114507
Bug ID: 114507
Summary: FR: Randomize order of evluation of function of
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114506
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/app/example.cpp:7:27: note: Comparing two main loops (RVVM1QI at VF 32 vs
RVVM8SF at VF 64)
/app/example.cpp:7:27: note: Preferring smaller LMUL loop because it has
unexpected spills
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58166
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52441
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Ah, wait, no point with andrew's nicer testcase ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
I'm going to upload the originals in case it offers more insight because the
return type isn't mismatched there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
Component|preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
(The workaround flags could be reduced but at this point I just wanted a quick
workaround.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 regression] |[12/13 regression]
|llvm-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114506
Bug ID: 114506
Summary: RISC-V: expect M8 but M4 generated with dynamic LMUL
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Changing he return type of size to be size_t rather than size_type fixes the
issue.
So does adding:
constexpr basic_string_view view;
to the toplevel namespace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57825|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.5.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57825&action=edit
Reduced most of the way (C++14 code now)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* We avoid outputting external vars or functions by reference
to the global decls section as we do not want to have them
enter decl merging. We should not need to do this anymore be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
I understand that this might be the reason why others have enabled zstd always
but reading the code this case should be supported.
That is LTO generated from a GCC without ZSTD support should be supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #12 from Eli Schwartz ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> Confirmed as I've seen it before. At least we should turn it into a
> "normal" error message instead of ICE.
>
> But note that even "downgrading the compression al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/QEMU#lto1:_internal_compiler_error:_original_not_compressed_with_zstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/twtxhc/problems_compiling_gjs_1712_on_amd64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/openwrt/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
OE (Yocto) ran into this:
https://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org/msg158289.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Something else must be going wrong here. Maybe a mistmatched version of ZSTD
which are incompatible somehow. Maybe ZSTD being miscompiled in one case.
The original ICE listed in this bug report should not h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
I'm confident I've seen this happen before but I haven't got a quick testcase
(it should be easy to make one, but I don't have a gcc w/ zstd right this
second.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the opposite direction, this is the fix:
```
diff --git a/gcc/lto-compress.cc b/gcc/lto-compress.cc
index c167ac967aa..1475674e7ac 100644
--- a/gcc/lto-compress.cc
+++ b/gcc/lto-compress.cc
@@ -408,7 +40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
Bug ID: 114505
Summary: static archives built with gcc --without-zstd cause
ICE when read by gcc with zstd support
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 57823 [details]
> > testcase for non-lto
> >
> > `-W -Wall -m32 -fwhole-program -march=i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Created attachment 57823 [details]
> testcase for non-lto
>
> `-W -Wall -m32 -fwhole-program -march=i686 -O1` is enough
Note the only difference between this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57823
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57823&action=edit
testcase for non-lto
`-W -Wall -m32 -fwhole-program -march=i686 -O1` is enough
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114487
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(You're right, by the way. The original fails with older GCC too. Sorry!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
Summary|Non-struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What's bizarre about the PR 104606 case is that this fixes it:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/optional
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/optional
@@ -1431,7 +1431,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
#ifde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like PR 104606 is another case.
#include
#include
#include
struct Value : public std::variant> { };
struct Comparator {
template
bool operator<=(const T &rhs)
{
return t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > Just wild guess, perhaps the PR98842 changes between 11.1 and 11.2?
>
> That would mean it is a bug in GCC 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114500
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114500
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd8a3eecc4edffad6e5091ae42c1cb1c1730b2ab
commit r14-9698-gbd8a3eecc4edffad6e5091ae42c1cb1c1730b2ab
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114504
Bug ID: 114504
Summary: Non-structural type accepted as non-type template
parameter type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114473
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE: in |[13 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114473
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdd59818e2abf6043f4d45aeb157e95956c71088
commit r14-9697-gfdd59818e2abf6043f4d45aeb157e95956c71088
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the missed SCCP is filed as PR 114502 (and another bug for the
non-constant loop bounds case; I don't have the # right now).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 114476, which changed state.
Bug 114476 Summary: [13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fwrapv -O3
-fno-vect-cost-model (and -march=armv9-a+sve2 on aarch64 and -march=rv64gcv on
riscv)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 114476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114502
Bug ID: 114502
Summary: Missed sccp final value with `a = -a`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
Bug ID: 114501
Summary: ICE during modref with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114474
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-27
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
My finding is that RA is not a problem for GCC speed with -O1 and up.
RA in -O0 does really consume a big portion of GCC compiler time. The
biggest part of RA in -O0 is actually spent in life analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70928
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
"All"... not the non-finite denormals ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.4.0, 12.1.0, 12.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97696
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97696
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d98467091bfc23522fefd32f1253e1c9e80331d3
commit r11-11296-gd98467091bfc23522fefd32f1253e1c9e80331d3
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114454
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm not sure what is going on here. The test as such does not require a UTF-8
LANG. That is, I can run the compiler and the test with LANG=C and everything
passes. In fact, that is exactly how the GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114453
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114453
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ff034fcff8ccab6eb82bf2cd36e2d24b2df9b78
commit r14-9695-g9ff034fcff8ccab6eb82bf2cd36e2d24b2df9b78
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112534
--- Comment #14 from Arsen Arsenović ---
indeed, system gettext should be unaffected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114469
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b0443361a82ef89d519c9ae6d4d3bec74376e8f
commit r14-9694-g4b0443361a82ef89d519c9ae6d4d3bec74376e8f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114463
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114463
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f85d3362cdb4bab611508dd9a38d9015c02ff7ca
commit r14-9693-gf85d3362cdb4bab611508dd9a38d9015c02ff7ca
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70928
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looking back at this one, I (In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> Here is a much simpler example:
>
> void f (int *p, int y)
> {
> int a = y & 14;
> *p = a | p[a];
> }
After r14-9692-g839bc42772ba7af66a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113663
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
> This patch fixes the ICE for me.
> Seems we already did something like that in other spots (e.g. in apply_scale).
In general if the overflow happens, some pass must have misbehaved and
do something crazy w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> But I think it would be best to fix it in the compiler, so that we always
> allow directly binding T&& or const T& to T, even if T is incomplete.
> Otherwis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #42 from Dmitry Kazakov ---
Hi, Avraham!
> Does it remain true that the only option to get around this bug without
> killing all AVX2 is to pass "-Wa,-muse-unaligned-vector-move" when compiling
> using GCC on Windows 64? Thank you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31418
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97696
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51e1629bc11f0ae4b8050712b26521036ed360aa
commit r12-10296-g51e1629bc11f0ae4b8050712b26521036ed360aa
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111075
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r13-6145-gb2287a4d9a640fdc2caef6a067830ea65044deb7
I must say I have no idea what is different from this POV on Darwin vs. Linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
