https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79721
Bug ID: 79721
Summary: Scalar evolution introduces signed overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> We also do a quite complex (sorry for the pun) and expensive
> division routine, just in order not to lose any bits of precision.
> If the compile-time simplificat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59714
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also see PR 19974.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely related to PR 59714.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Test case for double complex:
$ cat re-d.c
#include
#include
#include
char input[] = "1.2e20 -3.2";
int main()
{
double complex c1, c2, r1, r2;
double re, im;
c1 = 1.2e20 - 3.2*I;
sscanf(input,"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] complex|[5/6/7 Regression] complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> but gcc 6 and 7 fail.
So does 4.8, 4.9, and 5.
IMO this PR should be closed as invalid: the assumption that the roundoff
errors don't depend on the optimization level is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Where is computed 1./a? AFAICT the roundoff errors difference with
> optimization is restricted to this computation.
Yep, you're right... seems that const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|floating point result |floating point result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
v_10 = a_real * v_9;
v_11 = a_imag + v_10;
This can produce either a multiple and an add or a fused multiply add depending
on if the target supports fused multiple add.
See
https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71838
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
Bug ID: 79720
Summary: floating point result depends on optimization level
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #49 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 26 13:22:43 2017
New Revision: 245745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/51119
* options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Author: jakub
> Date: Sat Feb 25 10:17:31 2017
> New Revision: 245735
Works like a charm. Thanks for fixing! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79612
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
I cannot think of this happening with normal code. An
internal error might be better, but internal_error does not
take printf-style arguments.
19 matches
Mail list logo
