[Bug libfortran/108056] [12/13 Regression] backward compatibility issue between 11 and 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056 --- Comment #11 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- gfortran-11 compiles and run correctly when it uses libgfortran-11. To be perfectly clear, compilation always work: the issue occurs at runtime when gfortran-11 compiled code uses libgfortran-12).

[Bug libfortran/108056] backward compatibility issue between 11 and 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056 --- Comment #3 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- For the sake of completeness, debian/ubuntu ships libgfortran.a (read, the static library) from gfortran-11, so I can get this reproducer work if compiling with -static-libgfortran. I also manually r

[Bug libfortran/108056] backward compatibility issue between 11 and 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056 --- Comment #2 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- ubuntu does not ship libgfortran.so from gfortran-11. I tried on a RedHat box, and the issue only occurs when - I compile with gfortran-11 - *and* I force libgfortran-12 (so if i use the same gfor

[Bug libfortran/108056] New: backward compatibility issue between 11 and 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056 Bug ID: 108056 Summary: backward compatibility issue between 11 and 12 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: l

[Bug c/105449] suspicious optimization since GCC 10.1.0 from -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105449 --- Comment #4 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Thanks for the clarification!

[Bug c/105449] suspicious optimization since GCC 10.1.0 from -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105449 Gilles Gouaillardet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot

[Bug c/105449] suspicious optimization since GCC 10.1.0 from -

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105449 --- Comment #1 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 52916 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52916&action=edit a simple reproducer

[Bug c/105449] New: suspicious optimization since GCC 10.1.0 from -

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105449 Bug ID: 105449 Summary: suspicious optimization since GCC 10.1.0 from - Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/104152] New: ICE with -Ofast -march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=scalable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104152 Bug ID: 104152 Summary: ICE with -Ofast -march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=scalable Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/104005] [12 Regression] Regression on aarch64+sve with -O2 -fPIC since r12-5204

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005 --- Comment #7 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Thanks Richard for the quick fix! Unfortunately, I just found an other (and much older) issue (ICE, only at -Ofast) I reported at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104112

[Bug target/104112] ICE with -Ofast -march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104112 --- Comment #1 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 52227 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52227&action=edit a slightly rewritten reproducer that passes compilation

[Bug target/104112] New: ICE with -Ofast -march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104112 Bug ID: 104112 Summary: ICE with -Ofast -march=armv8.2-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=512 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug target/104005] [12 Regression] Regression on aarch64+sve with -O2 -fPIC since r12-5204

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005 --- Comment #3 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 52210 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52210&action=edit before/after (preprocessed sources + assembly)

[Bug target/104005] New: Regression on arm+sve with -O2 -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005 Bug ID: 104005 Summary: Regression on arm+sve with -O2 -fPIC Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/102252] svbool_t with SVE can generate invalid assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102252 --- Comment #6 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- I am happy to confirm this issue is fixed in the latest 12-20210919 snapshot :-) FWIW, I was not yet able to build GROMACS because of an other issue that was introduced last week. I reported it at ht

[Bug target/102421] ICE with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421 --- Comment #2 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 51487 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51487&action=edit a trimmed reproducer (FWIW - include files are missing)

[Bug target/102421] ICE with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421 --- Comment #1 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 51486 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51486&action=edit a (compressed) pre-processed reproducer

[Bug target/102421] New: ICE with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421 Bug ID: 102421 Summary: ICE with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/102252] svbool_t with SVE can generate invalid assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102252 --- Comment #1 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 51430 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51430&action=edit a test that works FWIW, the attached test_svfloat.cpp passes. It is very similar to test_svbool.cpp but

[Bug target/102252] New: svbool_t with SVE can generate invalid assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102252 Bug ID: 102252 Summary: svbool_t with SVE can generate invalid assembly Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/102226] ICE with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102226 --- Comment #2 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 51421 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51421&action=edit preprocessed reproducer Here is the preprocessed reproducer

[Bug target/102226] New: ICE with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102226 Bug ID: 102226 Summary: ICE with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=128 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/101053] Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 --- Comment #9 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- And here is the one-liner to fix this mess --- orig/OpenBLAS-0.3.15/kernel/arm64/dznrm2_thunderx2t99.c 2021-05-03 06:50:22.0 +0900 +++ OpenBLAS-0.3.15/kernel/arm64/dznrm2_thunderx2t99.c

[Bug target/101053] Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 --- Comment #8 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- It seems OpenBLAS is to be blamed after all ... >From kernel/arm64/dznrm2_thunderx2t99.c: #define REGINF "d9" static void nrm2_compute(BLASLONG n, FLOAT *x, BLASLONG inc_x,

[Bug target/101053] Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 --- Comment #7 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Note you have to 'make clean' before re-running 'make ...' with different options. Otherwise, pretty much nothing gets rebuilt.

[Bug target/101053] Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 --- Comment #6 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- I will set the watchpoint and follow the flow ... That being said, I still see the issue with the latest snapshot gcc (GCC) 12.0.0 20210613 (experimental) ./dgehd2 INFO =0 1.00

[Bug target/101053] Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 --- Comment #3 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Thanks for the clarification about which registers have to be preserved. I will dig this a bit more from now

[Bug fortran/101053] New: Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053 Bug ID: 101053 Summary: Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c++/100381] New: new static_assert((std::__is_complete_or_unbounded(...)) failure from g++ 11.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100381 Bug ID: 100381 Summary: new static_assert((std::__is_complete_or_unbounded(...)) failure from g++ 11.1.0 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug target/100305] [10 Regression] aarch64: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305 --- Comment #13 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Thanks Richard for the quick fix. I am happy to confirm that the latest trunk passes the three reproducers included in this ticket. However, the latest gcc-11 branch only passes the mini reproducer

[Bug target/100305] [11/12 Regression] aarch64: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305 --- Comment #4 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Thanks Alex for the more minimal reproducer. Sadly, the just released GCC 11.1.0 crashed with this code.

[Bug tree-optimization/100284] ICE in operation_could_trap_p with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100284 --- Comment #8 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- I made a mistake when building GCC 11.1.0, and I am happy to make the following correction: GCC 11.1.0 is *not* affected by this issue. The stack trace came from the master branch.

[Bug c++/100305] New: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -march=armv8.2-a -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305 Bug ID: 100305 Summary: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -march=armv8.2-a -O3 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/100284] ICE in operation_could_trap_p with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100284 --- Comment #7 from Gilles Gouaillardet --- Created attachment 50695 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50695&action=edit preprocessed reproducer $ ~/local/gcc-11.1.0/bin/gcc -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3 -c bug.i The bug has bee

[Bug c/100284] New: gcc crash with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100284 Bug ID: 100284 Summary: gcc crash with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c