https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85784
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91183
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91214
xiaoyi_wu at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91209
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
*** Bug 91208 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
--- Comment #5 from Sebastien Boisvert ---
OK, thanks for the link, this is interesting.
A previous release, g++ 7.4.0, does not generate an infinite loop in the
executable. Like g++ 8.3.0, it does print the warning: no return statement in
funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also read https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/porting_to.html :
-Wreturn-type is enabled by default
G++ now assumes that control never reaches the end of a non-void function (i.e.
without reaching a return statement).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
--- Comment #3 from Sebastien Boisvert ---
That was fast, thanks !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
--- Comment #1 from Sebastien Boisvert ---
As indicated in the minimum reproducer, returning 0 fixed this bug.
g++ reports this warning:
g++-8.3.0-infinite-loop-bug.cpp: In function 'int doY()':
g++-8.3.0-infinite-loop-bug.cpp:20:1: warning: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
Bug ID: 91215
Summary: Compiled program loops endlessly because of -O2 with
g++ 8.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91214
Bug ID: 91214
Summary: first atof function call not return correct result
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, because x86_64_general_operand allows memory but the v alternative not
and reloading that is appearantly more expensive than not doing that and
reloading the general reg later. Fun. Changing that to
x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91211
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 19 16:19:39 2019
New Revision: 273605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91211
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213
Bug ID: 91213
Summary: Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <=
X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It might work a lot better if it didn't have to load that all-ones vector
in a separate insn. Because it does, you need to do a 3->3 combination
(which we do not currently support) if you need to do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 19 14:36:49 2019
New Revision: 273604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/91204
* config/i386/mmx.md (one_cmpl2):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91194
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jul 19 14:31:09 2019
New Revision: 273603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/91194
* ipa-inline.c (recursive_inlining): Fix limi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
cc1*checksum.o warning appears normally (though I wonder why, e.g. for
cc1-checksum.o etc. it is not printed, just for ObjC/ObjC++), what is more
interesting is what is printed after the comparison failure me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #6 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
After trying to build our own set of open source components with this patch
(among the sqlite, openssl, boost, tcmalloc), we have no link issues resulting
from this change. Tested with gcc 8 and gcc 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
So another idea would be to provide [us]{min,max} patterns for integer modes
that split after reload into a compare&cmov or jumpy sequence if allocated
using GPR regs but also allow SSE reg alternatives whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Bug ID: 91212
Summary: const ignored for ctor arguments within return
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91200
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 19 12:24:53 2019
New Revision: 273602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 11:53:41 2019
New Revision: 273601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82081 - tail call optimization breaks noexcept
If a noexc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
my last successful bootstrap is from 20190706, r273162
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91209
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
no, I'm not sure, but why not use the bug tracker with the recent proposal to
merge the gm2 frontend?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK, I'm not sure it can be safely used,
because different instructions on x86 work differently. The old scalar shifts
do the & 31 masking for QImode/HImode, but e.g. vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, moritz.kreutzer at siemens dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198
>
> --- Comment #4 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
> > How would a vectorized version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2019-07-19 11:56:10.475964435 +0200
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2019-07-19 12:43:52.461469500 +0200
@@ -10661,6 +10661,43 @@
"ix86_split_ (operands, NULL_RT
y-trunk-273590-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20190719 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91190
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 19 10:26:23 2019
New Revision: 273599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91190
* function.c (insert_temp_slot_address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have several PRs for narrowing/widening pass on late gimple, but I'm afraid
this exact thing is not something that can be done there, because the semantics
on what the x86 instructions do is quite weird an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Perhaps we could define patterns for combine like:
> (set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=q")
> (ashiftrt:SI (zero_extend:SI (match_ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198
--- Comment #4 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
> How would a vectorized version with the intrinsic look like?
Something along the lines of (assuming insize is a multiple of 16):
__mmask16 mask;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Yes. But #c3 does the same thing in the middle-end.
> Though, if there is a backend pattern, it will be used also by the
> vectorizer or taken into account by gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. But #c3 does the same thing in the middle-end.
Though, if there is a backend pattern, it will be used also by the vectorizer
or taken into account by generic vector lowering.
So maybe we want both?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> seems to work for me. Or of course something similar can be done in
> config/i386/mmx.md, basically copy the sse.md one_cmpl2 pattern to
> mmx.md with TARGET_MMX_W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Ran into this again in context of PR91204, there is another case that isn't
> matched for a different reason:
> int a, b, c[64];
>
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #3 from Joel Yliluoma ---
For the record, for this particular case (8-bit checksum of an array, 16 bytes
in this case) there exists even more optimal SIMD code, which ICC (version 18
or greater) generates automatically.
vmovu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps we could define patterns for combine like:
(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=q")
(ashiftrt:SI (zero_extend:SI (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand"
"q"))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90098
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90099
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:52:58 2019
New Revision: 273596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85552 - wrong instantiation of dtor for DMI.
* typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90100
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.2
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90099
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:53:07 2019
New Revision: 273597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90098
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:53:07 2019
New Revision: 273597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:52:50 2019
New Revision: 273595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63149 - wrong auto deduction from braced-init-list
2019-06-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:53:07 2019
New Revision: 273597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:52:41 2019
New Revision: 273594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82081 - tail call optimization breaks noexcept
If a noexc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:47:41 2019
New Revision: 273593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91207
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91207
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 19 08:47:41 2019
New Revision: 273593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91207
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
Bug 91178 depends on bug 91207, which changed state.
Bug 91207 Summary: [10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91207
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Looking at x86 shl/shr instructions, it seems they don't do the
> SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED masking, but actually mask always the shift count with
> & 31 (unless 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, note the combiner doesn't try to match that, nor with the
void
foo (unsigned char a, unsigned char b, unsigned char *c)
{
*c = a >> b;
}
case, the final subreg is in some other instruction (e.g. the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at x86 shl/shr instructions, it seems they don't do the
SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED masking, but actually mask always the shift count with &
31 (unless 64-bit shift, then it is indeed SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86-64-linux
Component|objc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> --- gcc/optabs.c.jj 2019-07-15 10:53:10.743205405 +0200
> +++ gcc/optabs.c 2019-07-19 00:38:20.271852242 +0200
> @@ -2972,6 +2972,17 @@ expand_unop (machi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86 |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91200
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So we're applying cselim to
if (a.0_1 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 766958447]:
# i_20 = PHI
h[i_20] = &c;
[local count: 168730858]:
# i_21 = PHI
wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90097
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90100
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 19 07:29:15 2019
New Revision: 273592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90101 - dependent class non-type parameter.
We shouldn't c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205
--- Comment #5 from Ricardo Ribalda ---
Thanks for the clarification!
(And now, after using C/gcc daily for over 18 years I realise that I have no
fucking clue about C and gcc :) )
80 matches
Mail list logo
