https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40361
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the cross jumping opportunity since at least 5.4 even with a conditional
return.
ldr r3, .L8
stmfd sp!, {r4, lr}
ldr r3, [r3]
ldr r4, .L8+4
cmp r3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39821
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101622
Bug ID: 101622
Summary: Type erasure (upcasting) in constexpr/consteval
context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101621
--- Comment #3 from YumeYao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The cast issue is because in GCC 9, it was not producing PERM at the gimple
> level which was fixed correctly in GCC 11.
>
> clang_shuffle_with_zero can easy be added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bcrl at kvack dot org
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32226
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
To do this optimization (the reduced testcase works right now), you have to
simulate each statement until the end with "width_5 == 0" (the opposite range
of the initial condition) to see if get the other phi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39761
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Fixed in GCC 8, most likely by r8-5346 . That is DOM is now able to do the
> jump threading even at -Os.
I should say DOM is doing the jump threading now whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-03 12:34:44 |2021-7-25
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35309
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
THe original testcase in comment #0 is now fixed but the following is not:
struct A {
int f[16];
} ag, ag2,ag3;
struct A foo(int n)
{
if (n)
{
ag2 = ag;
}
return ag;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-09-17 22:48:12 |2021-7-25
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101621
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19922
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the question becomes do we care about this look if
-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns is added? Anyways we are able to detect
the loop is a memset for a while now and then expand that to have no xor ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101621
--- Comment #1 from YumeYao ---
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/a47Enb9oK
16-bytes (AVX) version added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94956
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101621
Bug ID: 101621
Summary: gcc cannot optimize int8_t vector assign with
subscription to shuffle
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101614
Evan Nemerson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
A few more canonicalization issues that need to be thought of:
"a >>u (bitsize-1)" and "a >s (bitsize-1)" and "-(a Thinking about this some more, there is a canonicalization issue. We need to
> decide if w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Thinking about this some more, there is a canonicalization issue. We need to
decide if we want to canonicalization to just a ? -1 : 1; or expand it out.
a ? 1 : 0 makes sense to do (cast) a; So does "a ? 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101490
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Reduced test
---
struct test
{
int[0] foo;
}
void main()
{
test* t;
auto a = cast(typeof(t.foo)[0])t.foo;
write(a);
}
void write(S)(S args)
{
foreach (arg; args)
{
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51203|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51203&action=edit
ifcvt patch
Patch which go into testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have the ifcvt.c patch which adds this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101441
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Upstream dmd fixed bug much later than 2.076.
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/9920
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67382
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It turns out that noop other_insn is fine, and is accepted etc., but the
resulting i3 in this case is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #2 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101620
Bug ID: 101620
Summary: gcc incorrectly makes concept checking in
incomplete-class context
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52099
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>From the dup:
Eric Fiselier 2016-01-20 03:50:56 UTC
Created attachment 37399 [details]
reproducer
I don't see where [except.handle] allows such a conversion.
Comment 1 Jonathan Wakely 2017-01-13 20:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67382
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Note combine is able to figure out the jump is unconditional but there is no
> "pattern" to match it:
> Trying 10 -> 17:
>10: r85:QI=0x1
>17: {flags:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101617
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it turns out you can make this generic and don't need to handle 1 specially
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index beb8d27535e..2af987278af 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -3805,14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101619
Bug ID: 101619
Summary: d: Change in DotTemplateExp type semantics leading to
regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100552
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #11 from Mosè Giordano ---
> This is OK for master and back-ports from the Darwin perspective
Thanks for the review and confirmation!
> (I guess Martin plans to deal with this since he has assigned the PR, but if
> he does not hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Mosè Giordano from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51038 [details]
> Patch to fix the reported issue
>
> Please find attached a patch to fix the reported issue. I replaced the
> bashism += wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
Bug ID: 101618
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage caused by call site in a "for"
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101616
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
45 matches
Mail list logo
