[Bug middle-end/28614] gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c times out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28614 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28614 > > --- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge --- > (In reply to myself fro

[Bug target/116955] [15 Regression] GCN '-march=gfx1100': [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} gcc.dg/vect/pr81740-2.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116955 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116955 > > Thomas Schwinge changed: > >W

[Bug target/116571] [15 Regression] GCN vs. "lower SLP load permutation to interleaving"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116571 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116571 > > --- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug middle-end/114855] ICE: Segfault when compiling large autogenerated C source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 --- Comment #52 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, aldy at quesejoda dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 > > --- Comment #51 from aldy at quesejoda dot com --- > "rguenth a

[Bug middle-end/114855] ICE: Segfault when compiling large autogenerated C source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 --- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 > > --- Comment #36 from Aldy Hernandez --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/116352] [15 regression] ICE when building opencv-4.9.0 (error: definition in block 208 does not dominate use in block 188) since r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >W

[Bug middle-end/114855] ICE: Segfault when compiling large autogenerated C source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 > > --- Comment #29 from Andrew Macleod --- > Huh. Do we calculate

[Bug tree-optimization/116460] [14 Regression] LTO ICE with -g during GIMPLE pass: forwprop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460 --- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 3 Sep 2024, ales.astone at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116460 > > --- Comment #25 from Alessandro Astone --- > Thanks! > >

[Bug tree-optimization/36010] Loop interchange not performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36010 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36010 > > Tamar Christina changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/116573] [15 Regression] Recent SLP work appears to generate significantly worse code on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573 --- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 02.09.2024 um 18:48 schrieb law at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573 > > Jeffrey A. Law changed: > >

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 > > --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/116510] [15 Regression] ice in decompose, at wide-int.h:1049

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116510 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116510 > > --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- > #6 0x000

[Bug tree-optimization/116348] [15 regression] ICE when building gavl-1.4.0 with -O3 -march=znver4 since r15-2791-g2083389a18d366

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348 > > --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- > I've tested the ch

[Bug tree-optimization/101390] Expand vector mod as vector div + multiply-subtract

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101390 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, jschmitz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101390 > > --- Comment #7 from Jennifer Schmitz --- > Thank you for the reply

[Bug tree-optimization/115278] [13 Regression] -ftree-vectorize optimizes away volatile write on x86_64 since r13-3219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115278 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115278 > > Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/116142] vec_widen_smult_{odd,even}_M ineffective for a simple widening dot product (vect_used_by_reduction is not set?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 > > --- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/116142] vec_widen_smult_{odd,even}_M ineffective for a simple widening dot product (vect_used_by_reduction is not set?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116142 > > --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- > In the following call st

[Bug c/116130] Implement C23 N2956 paper - [[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] function type arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug c/116130] Implement C23 N2956 paper - [[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] function type arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130 > > --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Seems we actually implement

[Bug tree-optimization/116098] [14/15 Regression] _Bool value from tagged union is incorrect when built with optimization since r14-1597-g64d90d06d2db43

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 27.07.2024 um 02:38 schrieb pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098 > > --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- >

[Bug middle-end/116065] [13/14/15 Regression] Function attribute optimize() might make ISA target attribute broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 25 Jul 2024, hongyuw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116065 > > --- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang --- > (In reply to Andrew Pinski

[Bug middle-end/45215] Tree-optimization misses a trick with bit tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45215 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 19 Jul 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45215 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/114966] fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966 > > --- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu --- > I saw pass_eras optimize B

[Bug tree-optimization/114908] fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908 > > --- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- > (In reply to Ri

[Bug target/114189] Target implements obsolete vcond{,u,eq} expanders

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 12 Jul 2024, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189 > > Eric Botcazou changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/115629] Inefficient if-convert of masked conditionals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 01.07.2024 um 12:10 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629 > > --- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina --- >

[Bug tree-optimization/115710] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] complex abs does not vectorise

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115710 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 30 Jun 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115710 > > --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- > I wonder if we co

[Bug target/115640] [15 Regression] GCN: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr115528.f -O execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 > > --- Comment #14 from Andrew Stubbs --- > On 26/06/2024 13:34, rguent

[Bug target/115640] [15 Regression] GCN: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr115528.f -O execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 > > Thomas Schwinge changed: > >W

[Bug target/115640] GCN: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr115528.f -O execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640 > > --- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug tree-optimization/115304] gcc.dg/vect/slp-gap-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/115537] [15 Regression] vectorizable_reduction ICEs after g:d66b820f392aa9a7c34d3cddaf3d7c73bf23f82d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 18.06.2024 um 16:11 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115537 > > --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina --- &g

[Bug target/115517] Fix x86 regressions after dropping uses of vcond{,u,eq}_optab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517 > > --- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug target/115517] Fix x86 regressions after dropping uses of vcond{,u,eq}_optab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115517 > > --- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/115427] fallback for interclass mathfn bifs like isinf, isfinite, isnormal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115427 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 11 Jun 2024, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115427 > > --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 > > --- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 > > --- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/115304] gcc.dg/vect/slp-gap-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304 > > --- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs --- > (In reply to Richard Biener fro

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #50 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, Christopher.Nerz at de dot bosch.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #49 from Christopher Nerz > --- > Ah, mi

[Bug tree-optimization/115298] [15 Regression] Various targets failing DSE tests after recent changes due to default of -fno-fdelete-null-pointer-checks on those targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 May 2024, law at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298 > > --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > Agh. I was looking in the

[Bug tree-optimization/115298] [15 Regression] Various targets failing DSE tests after recent changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 31 May 2024, law at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115298 > > --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > What still doesn't make s

[Bug middle-end/28831] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Aggregate copy not elided when using a return value as a pass-by-value parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831 --- Comment #44 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 23 May 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831 > > --- Comment #43 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- > I see this i

[Bug tree-optimization/114072] gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr111779.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 22 May 2024, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072 > > --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bie

[Bug tree-optimization/114072] gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr111779.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 22 May 2024, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072 > > --- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bie

[Bug tree-optimization/115138] [15 Regression] Bootstrap compare-debug fail after r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115138 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 17.05.2024 um 16:20 schrieb iains at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115138 > >Bug ID: 115138 > Su

[Bug rtl-optimization/101523] Huge number of combine attempts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523 --- Comment #64 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 4 May 2024, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523 > > --- Comment #61 from Segher Boessenkool --- > We used to do the wr

[Bug tree-optimization/114908] fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 6 May 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908 > > --- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- > The stdx::simd imple

[Bug tree-optimization/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to interleaving sotres

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 > > --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- > > Yes, DSE walking doesn'

[Bug tree-optimization/114749] [13 Regression] RISC-V rv64gcv ICE: in vectorizable_load, at tree-vect-stmts.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114749 > > --- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong --- > Hi, Patrick. > > It

[Bug target/111231] [12/13/14 regression] armhf: Miscompilation with -O2/-fno-exceptions level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 --- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231 > > --- Comment #34 from Richard Earnshaw --- > To be honest, I'

[Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 > > --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 > > --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to kugan from

[Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 08.04.2024 um 16:55 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635 > > --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina --- &g

[Bug c++/114480] g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480 --- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, douglas.boffey at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480 > > --- Comment #25 from Douglas Boffey --- > (In reply to rguen

[Bug c++/114480] g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, douglas.boffey at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480 > > --- Comment #23 from Douglas Boffey --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug libfortran/114304] [13/14 Regression] libgfortran I/O – bogus "Semicolon not allowed as separator with DECIMAL='point'"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304 > > --- Comment #28 from Tobias Burnus --- > Created attachment 57896 &

[Bug middle-end/111683] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3 since r7-3163-g973625a04b3d9351f2485e37f7d3382af2aed87e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683 --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683 > > --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug sanitizer/111736] Address sanitizer is not compatible with named address spaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111736 > > --- Comment #16 from Uro? Bizjak --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug rtl-optimization/92080] Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 > > Hongtao Liu changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/114345] FRE missing knowledge of semantics of IFN loads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345 > > --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug libfortran/114304] [13/14 Regression] libgfortran I/O – bogus "Semicolon not allowed as separator with DECIMAL='point'"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 11.03.2024 um 20:03 schrieb jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304 > > --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- >

[Bug target/114252] Introducing bswapsi reduces code performance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252 > > --- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay --- > The code in the exam

[Bug middle-end/105533] UBSAN: gcc/expmed.cc:3272:26: runtime error: signed integer overflow: -9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be represented in type 'long int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >W

[Bug target/114252] Introducing bswapsi reduces code performance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 06.03.2024 um 17:12 schrieb gjl at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252 > > --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- > (In re

[Bug target/114232] [14 regression] ICE when building rr-5.7.0 with LTO on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232 > > --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Either change those too, or

[Bug target/114232] [14 regression] ICE when building rr-5.7.0 with LTO on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >W

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #41 from Richard Sandiford --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug other/114191] Flags "Warning" and "Target" don't mix well in target.opt files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114191 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114191 > > --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #33 from Richard Sandiford --- > Can you give me a ch

[Bug tree-optimization/114151] [14 Regression] weird and inefficient codegen and addressing modes since g:a0b1798042d033fd2cc2c806afbb77875dd2909b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151 > > --- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina --- > > > > This

[Bug tree-optimization/114041] wrong code with _BitInt() and -O -fgraphite-identity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041 > > --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I can change the comparison

[Bug tree-optimization/112325] Missed vectorization of reduction after unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 > > --- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug tree-optimization/112325] Missed vectorization of reduction after unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 > > --- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu --- > > >Loop body

[Bug tree-optimization/112325] Missed vectorization of reduction after unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325 > > --- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu --- > (In reply to Hongtao Liu

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina --- > Created atta

[Bug tree-optimization/114041] wrong code with _BitInt() and -O -fgraphite-identity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041 > > --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- > I thought graphite is don

[Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 > > --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Yeah, I was worried about

[Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 --- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 > > --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 > > --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So, either we could somehow

[Bug ipa/113476] [14 Regression] irange::maybe_resize leaks memory via IPA VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476 > > --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988 > > --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > Am 15.02.2024 um 19:53 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org > : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 > > --- Comment #21 from Tamar Christina --- >

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 > > --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Thu, 15 Feb

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 > > --- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Jan Hubicka

[Bug tree-optimization/113787] [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O with ipa-modref on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 14 Feb 2024, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 > > --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka --- > > > I guess PTA gets

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 14 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 > > --- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek --- > So: > --- gcc/ipa-icf.

[Bug tree-optimization/113787] [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O with ipa-modref on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 > > --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka --- > > > > IVOPTs does the

[Bug tree-optimization/113787] [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O with ipa-modref on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113787 > > --- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka --- > So my understanding is that

[Bug c++/113852] -Wsign-compare doesn't warn on unsigned result types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113852 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, admin at computerquip dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113852 > > --- Comment #7 from Zachary L --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/113583] Main loop in 519.lbm not vectorized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 > > --- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong --- > The FMA is generated in

[Bug tree-optimization/113583] Main loop in 519.lbm not vectorized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 > > --- Comment #13 from JuzheZhong --- > Ok. I found the op

[Bug ipa/113359] [13 Regression] LTO miscompilation of ceph on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359 > > --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Just going from the deman

[Bug tree-optimization/113736] ICE: verify_gimple failed: incompatible types in 'PHI' argument 0 with _BitInt() struct copy to __seg_fs/gs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113736 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113736 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/99395] s116 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > --- Comment #18 from JuzheZhong --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug tree-optimization/99395] s116 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > --- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong --- > (In reply to rguent...@

[Bug tree-optimization/99395] s116 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong --- > Thanks Richard. > >

[Bug tree-optimization/113622] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE with vectors in named registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622 > > --- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao --- > On x86_64: > > $ cat t

[Bug target/113059] [14 regression] fftw fails tests for -O3 -m32 -march=znver2 since r14-6210-ge44ed92dbbe9d4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059 > > --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/113576] [14 regression] 502.gcc_r hangs r14-8223-g1c1853a70f9422169190e65e568dcccbce02d95c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576 --- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576 > > --- Comment #30 from Richard Sandiford --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/113583] Main loop in 519.lbm not vectorized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 26 Jan 2024, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583 > > --- Comment #9 from Robin Dapp --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >