[Bug tree-optimization/59523] [4.9 Regression] r205856 caused internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523 --- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin --- Seems to cause PR59591

[Bug tree-optimization/59591] New: ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at tree-vect-stmts.c:156 for -march=core-avx2

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com Target: x86 Started after r206069 and reproduced on 481.wrf from spec2006 Reduced testcase attached Options for

[Bug tree-optimization/59523] ICE on spec2000/176.gcc, 200.sixtrack after r205856 for -march=core-avx2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin --- Created attachment 31454 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31454&action=edit Reduced testcase

[Bug tree-optimization/59523] New: ICE on spec2000/176.gcc, 200.sixtrack after r205856 for -march=core-avx2

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com Target: x86 Happens for options -Ofast -march=core-avx2 For 176.gcc global.c: In function 'global_alloc': global.c:27

[Bug tree-optimization/54742] Switch elimination in FSM loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742 --- Comment #31 from Igor Zamyatin --- The problem is that there is a performance regression on i686 for Coremark test

[Bug tree-optimization/54742] Switch elimination in FSM loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/59040] [4.9 Regression] r203937 caused: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/memcpy-1.c -O0 (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59040 --- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin --- Hmm... http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58853

[Bug target/59040] [4.9 Regression] r203937 caused: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/memcpy-1.c -O0 (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59040 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug lto/57554] [4.9 regression] 176.gcc built with -flto miscompared after r198917 for x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57554 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/57554] [4.9 regression] 176.gcc built with -flto miscompared after r198917 for x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57554 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin --- Seems the test is ok now

[Bug rtl-optimization/58384] [4.9 regression] Runfail on spec2000/253.perlbmk if lto and pre-reload scheduler is used on x86 after r200133.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58384 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/58853] [4.9 regression] ICE after r203937

, ||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin --- Adding Honza

[Bug rtl-optimization/58679] New: [4.9 regression] ICE in create_pre_exit, at mode-switching.c:421 with -mavx after r202915

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: yvan.roux at linaro dot org Host: x86 Target: x86 Happens with gcc.c-torture

[Bug lto/58298] [4.9 regression] ICE in mentions_vars_p_field_decl, at lto/lto.c:1392

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58298 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug lto/57879] GCC with -flto generates invalid code for genmddeps program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57879 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug lto/57602] Runfails for several C/C++ benchmarks from spec2000 for i686 with -flto after r199422

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602 --- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin --- Jan, have you had a chance to look at the problem?

[Bug lto/57602] Runfails for several C/C++ benchmarks from spec2000 for i686 with -flto after r199422

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin --- Created attachment 30377 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30377&action=edit Untested patch that corrects the cleanup

[Bug lto/57602] Runfails for several C/C++ benchmarks from spec2000 for i686 with -flto after r199422

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz --- Comment #3 from

[Bug lto/57602] Runfails for several C/C++ benchmarks from spec2000 for i686 with -flto after r199422

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin --- For both cases we have calls of static routines where address of some static variable is being passed. Since all this could be seen only for 32 bits, problem looks like some attribute which allows the routine

[Bug lto/57602] New: Runfails for several C/C++ benchmarks from spec2000 for i686 with -flto after r199422

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: jh at suse dot cz Target: i686 For instance, 164.gzip has Segmentation fault. (tried on trunk, revision

[Bug rtl-optimization/57468] [4.9 Regression] 26% performance drop on important benchmark after r199298.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin --- So following commit fixed the issue commit 3620f4de1b49b0bfffe5f812b2d259e5c72c5c61 Author: vmakarov Date: Thu Jun 6 21:12:06 2013 + 2013-06-06 Vladimir Makarov PR rtl-optimization/574

[Bug rtl-optimization/57468] [4.9 Regression] 26% performance drop on important benchmark after r199298.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468 --- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin --- Patch is here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00357.html

[Bug lto/57554] New: [4.9 regression] 176.gcc built with -flto miscompared after r198917 for x86

: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: jh at suse dot cz Target: x86 Note that before r198917 there was compilation fail for this test. Compile flags: -O3

[Bug c++/57208] Latest chromium compilation fails with enabled LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/57447] New: [4.9 Regression] ICE on 435.gromacs from spec2006 after r199298

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: vmakarov at redhat dot com Target: x86_64 Happens only on x86_64 with just "-O2 -ffast-math" flags: co

[Bug tree-optimization/57337] [4.9 Regression] 416.gamess ICE on x86 after r199048

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57337 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin --- For the record - 191.fma3d from spec2K fails with similar error

[Bug middle-end/57393] [4.9 Regression] error: definition in block 4 follows the use / internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/57349] New: ICE on 253.perlbmk with pgo after r198096

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: rguenther at suse dot de Target: x86 Output: gcc -c -o perl.o -DSPEC_CPU2000_LP64 -DSPEC_CPU2000_LINUX_I386 -DSPEC_CPU2000_NEED_BOOL -DSPEC_CPU2000_GLIBC22

[Bug tree-optimization/57337] New: 416.gamess ICE on x86 after r199048

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: eraman at google dot com Target: x86 gfortran -c -o mp2ddi.fppized.o -O2 -ffast-math -ffixed-form mp2ddi.fppized.f mp2ddi.fppized.f: In function 'pm

[Bug lto/57289] New: ICE during 454.calculix compilation with -O3 -flto

: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com CC: mjambor at suse dot cz Target: x86 Happens due to r198821. Fail: lto1: internal compiler error: in propagate_controlled_uses, at ipa-prop.c:2552 0x71753f

[Bug lto/54095] Unnecessary static variable renaming

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 --- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin --- Indeed, -fwrapv helps to run 254.gap successfully

[Bug tree-optimization/57124] New: 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124 Bug #: 57124 Summary: 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/57084] New: 483. xalancbmk run fails with -O2 -flto for i686

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084 Bug #: 57084 Summary: 483. xalancbmk run fails with -O2 -flto for i686 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/56885] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1268 with -O -fschedule-insns -fselective-scheduling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56885 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- C

[Bug rtl-optimization/56885] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1268 with -O -fschedule-insns -fselective-scheduling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56885 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/34949] Dead code in empty destructors.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug middle-end/56680] New: ICE for spec2K's 178.galgel and 200.sixtrack for x86_64 at O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56680 Bug #: 56680 Summary: ICE for spec2K's 178.galgel and 200.sixtrack for x86_64 at O3 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug target/56676] unnecesary splitted load when using avx2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56676 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug fortran/55362] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with size() on character pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug target/56511] memcpy misses chance to use AVX instructions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56511 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2013-03-07 08:52:53 UTC --- Doesn't first argument of memcpy which is called from memcpy_vec have unknown (1byte) alignment? If yes, how PPC managed to produce vector instructions?

[Bug target/56511] memcpy misses chance to use AVX instructions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56511 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug target/56309] -O3 optimizer generates conditional moves instead of compare and branch resulting in almost 2x slower code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56309 --- Comment #21 from Igor Zamyatin 2013-02-15 06:49:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Following patch is a big hammer approach to the problem, intended only for > benchmarking > > --cut here-- > Index: common/config/i386/i386-comm

[Bug fortran/52865] GCC can't vectorize fortran loop but able to vectorize similar c-loop

||at gmail dot com Component|tree-optimization |fortran --- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin 2013-01-16 07:02:03 UTC --- Why for Fortran case loop is transformed in such form? It doesn't happen for C so probably it's Fortran issue

[Bug middle-end/43631] var-tracking inserts notes with non-NULL BLOCK_FOR_INSN in between basic blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631 --- Comment #17 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-12-10 08:02:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > But, double checking dwarf2out.c reveals that we could indeed emit the notes > after BARRIER instead if there is any. So I'm leaning towards this p

[Bug middle-end/43631] var-tracking inserts notes with non-NULL BLOCK_FOR_INSN in between basic blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631 --- Comment #12 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-12-07 10:24:04 UTC --- Oh, right, in this case just more checks are needed for distance_non_agu_define_in_bb in i386.c. I'll add them. Thanks!

[Bug middle-end/43631] var-tracking inserts notes with non-NULL BLOCK_FOR_INSN in between basic blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/54935] No way to do if converison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54935 --- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-11-27 08:40:44 UTC --- What do you think about the way we can relax this?

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #34 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-11-20 21:00:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #32) > Would be possible to double check if this problem is still fixed after the fix > to the tree-ssa-pre patch? Unfortunately the regression happened

[Bug other/55304] libsanitizer can't be used with GCC autoconf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304 --- Comment #9 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-11-15 14:25:42 UTC --- Thanks, this helped

[Bug other/55304] libsanitizer can't be used with GCC autoconf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug fortran/48636] Enable more inlining with -O2 and higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/54985] [4.7/4.8 Regression] dom optimization erroneous remove conditional goto.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985 --- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-30 08:32:01 UTC --- Are there any plans to backport this to 4.7?

[Bug tree-optimization/55006] [4.8 Regression] aermod.f90 is miscompiled with '-m64 -O2 -funroll-loops' after revision 192526

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/55104] [4.8 Regression] ice in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:269

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55104 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug rtl-optimization/54472] ICE (spill_failure): unable to find a register to spill in class 'AREG' with -O -fschedule-insns -fselective-scheduling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472 --- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-24 11:09:49 UTC --- Have you managed to check the patch?

[Bug rtl-optimization/54942] [4.8 Regression] ICE: OOM with -O3 -fno-cse-follow-jumps -funroll-loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54942 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-23 08:52:30 UTC --- Does it still happen? I don't see oom now for my test

[Bug rtl-optimization/54944] 400.perlbench fails with segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54944 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/54942] [4.8 Regression] ICE: OOM with -O3 -fno-cse-follow-jumps -funroll-loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54942 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/54889] [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889 --- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-16 11:12:47 UTC --- Jakub, are you going to commit the fix or there are some issues with it?

[Bug tree-optimization/54889] [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-11 11:40:39 UTC --- Now I see no compfails on the whole spec test 465

[Bug tree-optimization/54889] New: [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889 Bug #: 54889 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/50557] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Register pressure increase after reassociation (x86, 32 bits)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557 --- Comment #16 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-04 11:17:00 UTC --- Seems with LRA code is fast again

[Bug regression/54390] New: [AVX] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-tree-sra-bb-slp-pr50730.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54390 Bug #: 54390 Summary: [AVX] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-tree-sra-bb-slp-pr50730.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/53671] [4.8 Regression] Many guality test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671 --- Comment #14 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-22 11:24:17 UTC --- Thanks!

[Bug debug/53671] [4.8 Regression] Many guality test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/54200] copyrename generates wrong debuginfo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200 --- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-13 12:46:48 UTC --- Right! Sorry for the noise...

[Bug tree-optimization/54200] copyrename generates wrong debuginfo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/53942] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] unable to find a register to spill in class 'CREG'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53942 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/54156] [4.8 Regression] New fail on AVX target: gcc.dg/vect/pr53773.c. 190010 vs revision 189996

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156 --- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-03 19:24:40 UTC --- There are no those fails now, thanks! The bug could be closed.

[Bug target/54156] [4.8 Regression] New fail on AVX target: gcc.dg/vect/pr53773.c. 190010 vs revision 189996

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156 --- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-03 13:38:05 UTC --- There are 6 "* 10" in a dump for AVX (additional 2 occur when vectorizer consider 32-byte vectorization)

[Bug target/54156] [4.8 Regression] New fail on AVX target: gcc.dg/vect/pr53773.c. 190010 vs revision 189996

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-01 15:57:42 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Jul 31 12:25:04 2012 + gcc: 2012-07-31 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/53773 * tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_inf

[Bug regression/54084] Bunch of fails for x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084 --- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-07-26 08:44:01 UTC --- Looks like r189812 fixed some failures but not all of them. Patch from comment 2 fixes all problems

[Bug regression/54084] Bunch of fails for x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084 --- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-07-24 17:16:11 UTC --- Seems ok now

[Bug regression/54084] New: Bunch of fails for x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084 Bug #: 54084 Summary: Bunch of fails for x86 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/53787] Possible IPA-SRA / IPA-CP improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 --- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-07-19 19:09:49 UTC --- Any thoughts here?

[Bug lto/53787] Possible lto improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 --- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-28 08:22:11 UTC --- Created attachment 27715 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27715 ifort assembler "Init" routine looks much better here

[Bug lto/53787] Possible lto improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-28 08:17:13 UTC --- Created attachment 27714 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27714 gfort assembler "Init" routine should be inspected here

[Bug lto/53787] Possible lto improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 --- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-27 17:56:48 UTC --- The testcase was reduced from some real app. No inlining happened there. Do you think this testcase is bad?

[Bug lto/53787] New: Possible lto improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 Bug #: 53787 Summary: Possible lto improvement Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug bootstrap/53750] x86 bootstrap failure since 188876

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53750 --- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-22 10:14:40 UTC --- Oh, I see that fix was already checked in. Great!

[Bug bootstrap/53750] New: x86 bootstrap failure since 188876

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53750 Bug #: 53750 Summary: x86 bootstrap failure since 188876 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/53081] memcpy/memset loop recognition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53081 --- Comment #16 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-20 08:44:44 UTC --- Also cause of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726

[Bug tree-optimization/53081] memcpy/memset loop recognition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53081 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/53588] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53588 Bug #: 53588 Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/53555] [4.8 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53555 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug regression/53437] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c -O0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53437 Bug #: 53437 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c -O0 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug middle-end/53161] [4.8 Regression] ICE with weakref function and a function which takes vector types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161 --- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-05-11 10:07:07 UTC --- Error message for x86 compilation

[Bug middle-end/53161] [4.8 Regression] ICE with weakref function and a function which takes vector types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/53209] [4.7/4.8 Regression] tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/53128] [4.8 Regression] Compiler produces infinite loop on regular O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128 --- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-05-04 13:19:07 UTC --- Compiler does not simply see such code, it happens after some analysis, right? For example, after work of infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined which makes some assumptions and I believe ca

[Bug tree-optimization/53128] [4.8 Regression] Compiler produces infinite loop on regular O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128 --- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-05-03 11:09:15 UTC --- Isn't it too aggressive from user perspective to perform such transformation even without warning? Especially for the case when that "wrong" read is not used later. Sure it is dangerou

[Bug tree-optimization/53128] New: [4.8 Regression] Compiler produces infinite loop on regular O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128 Bug #: 53128 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Compiler produces infinite loop on regular O2 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/53054] New: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap failure on x86-64 after rev 186609

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53054 Bug #: 53054 Summary: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap failure on x86-64 after rev 186609 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/52272] [4.7/4.8 regression] Performance regresswion of 410.bwaves on x86.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272 --- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-19 13:09:25 UTC --- Another version of the experimental patch is here - http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868 It fixes bwaves regression on x86 and might not trigger performance on other pla

[Bug tree-optimization/52868] [4.7/4.8 Regression] 4.6 is faster on Atom

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868 --- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-19 13:09:07 UTC --- Experimental patch that fixes the regression: diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c index 3c11c0e..9c04516 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c +++ b

[Bug c++/53022] gimple check fail in gimple_assign_rhs1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53022 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/52865] GCC can't vectorize fortran loop but able to vectorize similar c-loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865 --- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-16 07:16:56 UTC --- Any ideas what exactly does prevent the vectorization in the case of Fortran?

[Bug fortran/52916] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916 --- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-12 13:55:54 UTC --- With this patch 481.wrf is ok

[Bug tree-optimization/52868] New: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] 4.6 is faster on Atom

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868 Bug #: 52868 Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] 4.6 is faster on Atom Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

<    1   2   3   >