https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Why do you use -n? That might disrupt things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Does it work when you use STAGE1_CFLAGS="-O0" (I think clang defaults to
> optimizing?). To rule out compare-debug issues also try
> --without-build-config
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0, 9.3.1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin
Host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #5 from Daniel ---
As a sidenote, the original example is also compiling if test object is made
non-const, i.e. "const Derived test;" is replaced with "Derived test;"
If the argument in Comment 1 is true than the program would still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #17 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If the constant limitation is removed, it could be combined successfully with
my new patch for PR94613.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569255.html
And what do you mean"This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Confirmed.
Merci, Dominique. Would you actually advise to compile without bootstrap and
start using gcc, or wait until the reason for the bootstrap failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94136
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #16 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> +2016-11-09 Segher Boessenkool
> +
> + * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
> + (xor (and (xor A B) C) B) to (ior (and A C) (and B ~C)) and
> + (xor (an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305
--- Comment #13 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Thanks Richard for the quick fix.
I am happy to confirm that the latest trunk passes the three reproducers
included in this ticket.
However, the latest gcc-11 branch only passes the mini reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #4 from W E Brown ---
I won't comment on any compiler's behavior, but do want to thank you for
reminding me of [namespace.udecl]/14:
"When a using-declarator brings declarations from a base class into a derived
class, member functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100267
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> > After support v{,p}expand* thats w/o mask operands, codegen seems to be
> > optimal
> >
>
> I was wrong, without mask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You are going to have to provide the whole build log to figure out why this is
happening.
Are you using a network mounted drive? If so do they have the time syncronized
between them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-29
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100348
Bug ID: 100348
Summary: RISC-V extra pointer adjustments for memcpy() from
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #1 from Erik Schnetter ---
Forgot to add: When I explicitly use "-march=skylake", everything works as
expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Bug ID: 100347
Summary: GCC 11 does not recognize skylake; translates
"march=native" to "x86_64"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #2 from Mark Hittinger ---
../gcc-11.1.0/configure \
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc1110 \
--disable-multilib \
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
x64 fedora using binutils-2.36 and gcc 10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100346
Bug ID: 100346
Summary: [11 regression] printf tests fail after r11-6755
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50713&action=edit
Preprocess
sorry. the file was too large.
It looks like it is an issue related to constexpr evaluation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Testcase?
i can only provide preprocess file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Bug ID: 100345
Summary: gcc 11.1 build "make -n install" fails linking gcov
undefined reference to
std::__throw_bad_array_new_length()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Actually standard seems to require it - at least to my understanding of wait()
description in in chapter 31.8.1: it explicitly states that waiting is
performed in a loop, and loop is exited only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
D:\hg\fast_io\.tmp\dragonboxtest>g++ -o a a.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -s -flto
-march=native -Wall -Wextra
In file included from ../../include/fast_io_core_impl/codecvt/impl.h:7,
from ../../include/fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Bug ID: 100344
Summary: compiler ICE internal compiler error: in build_call_a,
at cp/call.c:38
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100330
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100343
Bug ID: 100343
Summary: add -Wundefined-inline for inline function is used but
not defined
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know if that rule applies here. If it did, this would be invalid too
(by [over.load]/2.1), but all compilers agree that this is OK:
struct Base {
int method() {}
};
struct Derived : Base {
us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #2 from Daniel ---
As an extra Info: the other compilers I tested (e.g. clang) accept the code
example as is.
But after reading the cited pet of the standard It seems that GCC is right in
rejecting this and the other compilers have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > gcc304 is the Apple M1 machine. The GCC support there is highly
> > experimental and not in master -- please note that ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I just check, with --disable-bootstrap, gcc compiles to the end. Just the
checksums of the object files for bootstrap between stage 2 and 3 don't agree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
it looks we need to rebuild cross compiler before Canadian cross-compile
because the cross compiler itself might not provide the macros we need.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On a system where things fail (Ubuntu 20.04.1):
Python 2.7.18
GNU gdb (GDB) 11.0.50.20201107-git
On a working system (Ubuntu 18.04.5):
Python 2.7.17
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 8.1.1-0ubuntu1) 8.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Bug ID: 100342
Summary: [10/11 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dse
-fno-forward-propagate -mno-sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
Bug ID: 100341
Summary: build fails of error: '__LIBGCC_DF_EPSILON__'
undeclared (first use in this function) for mingw-w64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
commit r12-302-gb24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
After update to macOS Big Sur 11.3 with XCode 12.5 and Apple Clang
clang-1205.0.22.9, bootstrap doesn't work any more:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Bug ID: 100340
Summary: Bootstrap fails with Clang 12.0.5 (XCode 12.5)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Bug ID: 100339
Summary: Bogus "should have been declared inside" error with
friend
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some of these tests are sensitive to GDB and Python versions. Do they differ
between machines?
I'll take a look at this tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
Bug ID: 100338
Summary: [11 regression] Python error running test case after
r11-2720
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
commit r12-299-ga0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
commit r12-298-g58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100304
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce this one.
Were you testing with a clean build, or did you have PR100303 fix applied?
On master, it stopped failing for me between r12-285 (BAD) a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100331
Michael Benfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbenfield at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efeca0ac4155b76ce713155f190422aac20537c5
commit r12-295-gefeca0ac4155b76ce713155f190422aac20537c5
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50710&action=edit
gcc12-pr94589-wip.patch
WIP patch that just matches those spaceship comparisons followed by single use
compari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94102
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94102
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f24702258fc78ac37b3e8154d76239cccd30c422
commit r12-294-gf24702258fc78ac37b3e8154d76239cccd30c422
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99401
Brecht Sanders changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
Bug ID: 100337
Summary: Should be able to pass non-present optional arguments
to CO_BROADCAST
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46250
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.5.0, 6.5.0, 7.5.0
--- Comment #7 from Z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers ---
This analysis is likely correct, except for -
"- protect from spurious wakeups in __waiter_pool::_M_do_wait by rechecking if
the value has changed from old, if not then wait again"
An earlier version of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c97351c0cf4872cc0e99e73ed17fb16659fd38b3
commit r12-292-gc97351c0cf4872cc0e99e73ed17fb16659fd38b3
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
Ivan Tubert-Brohman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ivan.tubert-brohman@schrodi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Writing a phiopt patch now.
t/gcc/config/i386/i386-isa.def
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210429.asan.ubsan/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/plugin/include/config/i386/
$
My best guess is that the "make install" should do this copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50708|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
During lower_rec_input_clauses in omp-low.c, the reduction clause is handled:
...
case OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION:
case OMP_CLAUSE_IN_REDUCTION:
/* OpenACC reductions are initi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña from comment #11)
> Thank you. But the first CE link: https://godbolt.org/z/cPWdGW, and with the
> addition in Comment 2: https://godbolt.org/z/Gezh5h5W4, they still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
C example:
...
/* { dg-additional-options "-foffload=-latomic" } */
#include
struct s
{
int i;
};
#pragma omp declare reduction(+: struct s: omp_out.i += omp_in.i)
int
main (void)
{
const int N0 = 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100312
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #5 from Steven Munroe ---
Any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Unfortunately the patch does not work because there aren't suffixes for IFmode
and KFmode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
Bug ID: 100335
Summary: Using statement of a ref-qualified method from base
class: method not callable on derived object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100312
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd5d57946036c967dae292330fa0aa856a58fb4b
commit r12-290-gfd5d57946036c967dae292330fa0aa856a58fb4b
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
If my analysis is correct then:
- we need to force __all = true param in __waiter_pool_base::_M_notify,
- protect from spurious wakeups in __waiter_pool::_M_do_wait by rechecking if
the value h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I have adapted the test to gcc trunk, but I am not entirely sure it is correct,
because I don't have gcc trunk locally, I was just testing this on wandbox.org
The problem is even bigger here, be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99401
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe dup of PR99872 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This test assumes previous waiter implementation (I used gcc-11 available from
Ubuntu 21.04), latest atomic_wait impl has the same problem, it is just that
waiter is selected in a different way,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Bug ID: 100334
Summary: atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
#include
bool k(int a, int b){
auto c = (a <=> b);
return c>0;
}
Produces
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (a_1(D) == b_3(D))
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto ; [66.00%]
[local count: 708669
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-29
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> > but yes, cselim will also sink the first store, moving it across the
>
> Can we also sink loads?
loads are usually hoisted, not sunk.
> assign pointer to ano
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50707&action=edit
prototype
For reference this is the prototype patch I mentioned. I wasn't entirely happy
and wanted to explo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:985b3a6837dee7001e6b618f073ed74f0edf5787
commit r12-285-g985b3a6837dee7001e6b618f073ed74f0edf5787
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jun 10 09:5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100333
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
