https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88547
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 20 07:58:02 2018
New Revision: 267293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267293&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88547
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_sse_movc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
--- Comment #5 from Lokesh Janghel ---
>>I think we should check if type is aggregate before we return in eax and
leave xmm0 for float and double.
>>break;
>>+ case 8:
>>+ case 4:
>>+ if (valtype != NULL_TREE && AGGREGA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into the gcc's header files, we have the following in gnu-user.h:
"%{shared:; \
pg|p|profile:gcrt1.o%s; \
static:crt1.o%s; \
" PIE_SPEC ":Scrt1.o%s; \
:crt1.o%s} \
So every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88559
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Inline-asm cannot clobber the stack pointer; espically when the operands for
input are on the stack. GCC is correct in erroring out but it is not fully
documented that way but it should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
--- Comment #3 from Shafik Yaghmour ---
Note, I have filed similar bugs for clang:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38420 and MSVC:
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/304122/unsequenced-modifications-of-variable-with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88559
Bug ID: 88559
Summary: error: Stack Pointer register clobbered by '%rsp' in
'asm'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> Should be greatly improved for C++ for gcc 9 by r267272.
...but not fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the way i read it is crt1.o is still incorrect and not using the got for the
addreas of main. Rather it is assuming it is inside the executable. Can you
send a line to where the discussion of the glibc q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88262
--- Comment #16 from Stephen Kim ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> Let's start over. crt1.o in glibc should support calling main that is
> located in the shared library.
> If it does not then there is a bug there.
>
Sorry. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I can't reproduce the failures with my cross-compilers.
For instance, with an arm-none-linux-gnueabihf cross I get the expected output
for a test case reduced from the one on line 120:
$ cat u.c && /build/ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
> The patch broke Solaris/SPARC bootstrap:
Sorry about that. Does the patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01433.html
help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88553
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> GCC 7 with
>
> pr81768-2.c: In function ‘foo._omp_fn.1’:
> pr81768-2.c:10:9: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1310
One gets ICE in make_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87750
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|aoliva at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88196
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mateuszb at poczta dot on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88558
Bug ID: 88558
Summary: Inline lrint, lrintf
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Dec 19 22:31:25 2018
New Revision: 267288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/87992
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88557
Bug ID: 88557
Summary: Lambda in template parameter list compiler
segmentation fault (ICE)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88556
Bug ID: 88556
Summary: Inline built-in sinh, cosh, tanh for -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 04:06:52PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
>
> --- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
>
> It should be valid code, just as legal as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88546
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88555
Bug ID: 88555
Summary: [9 Regression] Pack expansion fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
+
办理正规普通3%税票，点优惠，包真。
详电：王生
手机：136 6260 7748
业QQ：958811639
++
2:16
杆共贵默
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88550
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Dump file produced by the linker with -fdump-ipa-cgraph --save-temps (it
may end up in /tmp) would help to at least have clue what kind of symbol
caused the crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh that's definitely not right, because we don't want a fix-it for friend
functions, where *this isn't valid.
So this seems better:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -16092,6 +16092,7 @@ finish_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This fixes the ICE but I don't know if it's right and haven't tested it any
further:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -16093,7 +16093,7 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)
tree valtype =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Started to ICE (rather than give a -Wreturn-type diagnostic) with r263298
>
> Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators (PR
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80191
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
I think quoting/translating grammar terms is a general problem in the C++
front-end (perhaps to a lesser extent also in the rest of GCC as well). The
inconsistencies it leads to can be seen in the translated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #0)
> This is happening in trunk but not in GCC 8.2, so it must be a very recent
> regression.
You can't assume that, gcc-8-branch was branched from trunk in April.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
Bug ID: 88554
Summary: Segfault ICE when falling off the end of a
reference-returning friend operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58042
Michael K. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||test_avto22 at mail dot ru
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88553
Bug ID: 88553
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have var_decl in SSA_VAL, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:461
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88547
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45264
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45264&action=edit
gcc9-pr88547-1.patch
Untested patch to improve the avx512* sse_movcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Detected :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
integer(len((c)) :: n
end
$ cat z5.f90
implicit none
integer(len((c)) :: n
end
$ gfortran-9-20181216 -c z2.f90 -fimplicit-none
z2.f90:2:14:
2 | integer(len((c)) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552
Bug ID: 88552
Summary: ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1120
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
It should be valid code, just as legal as
$ cat z3.f90
subroutine s(x)
class(*), allocatable :: x
allocate (x, source='')
end
$ cat z4.f90
subroutine s(x)
class(*), allocatable :: x
allocate (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oliver,
Your new example doesn't seem to be hitting the same issue as the first one.
The first failure was being caused by paradoxical subregs, the second one
doesn't have paradoxical subregs.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
--- Comment #12 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Should be fixed (for gcc 9) by r267272.
Fantastic David!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
After r267273, g++ emits:
test.cc:10:30: error: invalid operands of types ‘const char [6]’ and ‘const
char’ to binary ‘operator&’
10 | return __builtin_strnlen (a&a[v0], n);
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Should be greatly improved for C++ for gcc 9 by r267272.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:22:27 2018
New Revision: 267276
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267276&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: better locations for bogus initializations (PR c++/88375)
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:15:42 2018
New Revision: 267273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: improvements to binary operator diagnostics (PR c++/87504)
The C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:08:21 2018
New Revision: 267272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:08:21 2018
New Revision: 267272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88547
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For 64-byte vectors, we emit
vpcmpgtb%zmm1, %zmm0, %k1
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpternlogd $0xFF, %zmm0, %zmm0, %zmm0
vmovdqu8%zmm1, %zmm0{%k1}
for f1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87841
--- Comment #5 from Ole Kniemeyer ---
Thanks for asking the committee. I think the standard makes sense as it is,
because otherwise there is no chance to name the template parameter (that's
what I need in my specific situation where I found the b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88551
Bug ID: 88551
Summary: passing a portion of an array of a derived type that
contains an allocatable component
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the post has appeared now, which didn't happen last time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Submitted, subject "Alignment requirements for _Atomic should be stated"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87237
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
c.f. Bug 65146
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
This one sort of fell through the cracks on me. With help from Vlad and Richard
S. I managed to track the issue to uses_hard_regs_p and the way it handles
paradoxical subregs (or fails to). I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> I'm subscribed as abusenet at kayari dot org and I'm pretty sure that's the
> address I used for both posts, because that's what the Google web UI does
> automatica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm subscribed as abusenet at kayari dot org and I'm pretty sure that's the
address I used for both posts, because that's what the Google web UI does
automatically.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65675
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The change in comment 5 was done in r222542
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> > > Did this ever get taken to the ABI group?
> >
> > I've done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 14:04:22 2018
New Revision: 267265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-19 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87841
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've asked the C++ committee to clarify whether the example is bogus or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 14:02:52 2018
New Revision: 267264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-19 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443
samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87999
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 13:54:08 2018
New Revision: 267263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Restrict a VSX extract to TARGET_POWERPC64 (PR88213)
This pattern o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80990
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> > Did this ever get taken to the ABI group?
>
> I've done so now.
I tried to start a discussion at the ia3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84257
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> 1) Speculation: that there are a lot of paths to search and they might
> contain many files, so that if there's no caching of the results (perhaps
> that was present
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88544
--- Comment #3 from Petr Štetiar ---
Hi Richard,
thanks a lot for your fast response!
It's probably my first bug report to GCC so I'll probably need a little
guidance to get you output which might help you.
I can do or enable whatever is neede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88550
Bug ID: 88550
Summary: A compiler error when use lto: internal compiler
error: in add_symbol_to_partition_1, at
lto/lto-partition.c:155
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88196
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88146
Bug 88146 depends on bug 87814, which changed state.
Bug 87814 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15962 with
range-v3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88180
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> Whether or not to fix as well as whether or not to warn at -O0 are a topic
> of debate. I'm not sure I'm up for re-opening that can of worms right now.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28364
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 19 11:10:08 2018
New Revision: 267262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88533
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88533
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 19 11:10:08 2018
New Revision: 267262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88533
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85275
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 19 11:10:08 2018
New Revision: 267262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88533
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
--- Comment #18 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Exactly
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 09:17, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> The multipl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Oliver Stannard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oliver.stannard at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84362
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45261&action=edit
patch I am testing
I am testing the attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84257
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> > Isn't ktestw and kortestw the same thing when both operands are the same
> > mask register?
> True, but kortestw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> Isn't ktestw and kortestw the same thing when both operands are the same
> mask register?
True, but kortestw is available with AVX512F, where ktestw is not.
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88535
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from john henning ---
>> There are 3 different switches: --build, --host and --target.
>
> Hmm. I must be looking in the wrong place for documentation; are these
> ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88541
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because AVX was what is in i386-builtins.def already and as the testcase shows,
it works with just -mavx. You can not just load/store those vectors, you can
also do logical operations on them etc. (through t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88541
--- Comment #5 from jbeulich at novell dot com ---
So why -mavx instead of -mavx2? I think the way it was done for GFNI and SSE2
it should also be done there, here and for VAES wrt AVX: Only SSE2 provides
support for vectors of ints. Similarly onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the TARGET_AVX512F && looks incorrect, then we wouldn't be able to test or
cmp without -mavx512f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't ktestw and kortestw the same thing when both operands are the same mask
register?
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
