From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7407E38708C6; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:00:20 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7407E38708C6 From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/95401] [10 Regression] GCC produces incorrect instruction with -O3 for AVX2 since r10-2257-g868363d4f52df19d Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:00:20 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:00:20 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95401 --- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva --- It is definitely a problem in the dg infrastructure that compile mode doesn= 't work with additional sources, but fixing that seems quite involved, more th= an I can tackle right now. I've tried to duplicate the problem with a single te= st source file, with the compiler commit mentioned in the initial report, but failed, and it wasn't just because of the type inconsistency between var_14 across the current units. I suppose the alignment miscomputation, that cau= sed an aligned vector store insn to be incorrectly used, doesn't come up when t= he alignment is known, and much stricter than what can be assumed for an exter= nal symbol. Oh well...=