https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51838
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> The interest thing is when i remove addti3 and ashlti3 from i386.md, GCC
> generates optimal code.
Yes, we had this situation with _doubleword instructions, and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101994
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Lebedev ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #2)
> Fix is https://golang.org/cl/343873. Test case is
> https://golang.org/cl/343874.
Thank you very much
Great job
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #6 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> Perhaps related to this PR: On x86_64, the following basic wrapper around
> int128 addition
>
> __uint128_t f(__uint128_t x, __uint128_t y) { return x + y; }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36352
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase without templates:
inline int f(void)
{
static int t = 1;
return t;
}
int g(void)
{
return f();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94836
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51838
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> We do get slightly better now:
> xorl%eax, %eax
> movq%rdi, %r8
> xorl%edi, %edi
> addq%rsi, %rax
> adcq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|ICE: in gimplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Drafted a patch:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
index 7af92d1c893..5c77c8b7d51 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
@@ -1482,7 +1482,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60192
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedo |
|cs/gcc/Copy-Assignme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102123
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
template typename Template, typename... Args>
struct _dummy_forwarder {
using type = Template;
};
template typename Template, typename... Args>
using dummy_forwarder = typename _dummy_forwarder::type;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102123
Bug ID: 102123
Summary: Internal Compiler Error occurs during template
deduction in use with templates as template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-30
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Severity|critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kgardas at objectsecurity dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102122
--- Comment #1 from qingzhe huang ---
I can see now this is maybe a testcase "gcc.dg/Wvla-parameter-2.c" issue: Do we
expect XFAIL and PASS happen at the same time?
For example, the input can be simplified as following:
XFAIL: gcc.dg/Wvla-para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102122
Bug ID: 102122
Summary: contrib/compare_tests reports different result with
identical sum input
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vas.gurevich at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47004
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39249
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Petr.Salinger at seznam dot cz
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36887
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simplified testcase:
#pragma GCC poison a
int a;
GCC outputs:
:2:5: error: attempt to use poisoned "a"
2 | int a;
| ^
But not the location of the #pragma which would be useful to debug why it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I wonder why expand is generating subreg in place for the add in one case
and not the other.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102121
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
float compression is another one that should be done but I am less worried
about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102121
Bug ID: 102121
Summary: switch conversion to load table should do integer
compression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Tobler ---
Regarding comment #10, Steve is right with his guess, configure doesn't find
the fenv functionalities needed. The reason is pretty simple, for aarch64 and
powerpc, they are not public. A quick trial showed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88571
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102120
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is ICEing while printing out the error message :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102120
Bug ID: 102120
Summary: expected tree that contains 'decl common' structure,
have 'identifier_node' in dump_aggr_type, at
cp/error.c:786
Product: gcc
Version: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102026
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
It seems that all lambdas used in can remove the mutable keyword
since there are no members that need to be "mutable" inside the lambda.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102094
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102094
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07984707be4eb9aea55dafbbc796790b8b8ac700
commit r12-3206-g07984707be4eb9aea55dafbbc796790b8b8ac700
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102119
Bug ID: 102119
Summary: ICE when accessing an uninitialised variable in a
dynamic array of unions in a constexpr context.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102118
Bug ID: 102118
Summary: ice in merge, at ipa-modref-tree.h:203
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101996
Alpine User changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102117
--- Comment #1 from Jens Seifert ---
Sorry small bug in optimal sequence.
__int128 imul128_opt(long long a, long long b)
{
unsigned __int128 x = (unsigned __int128)(unsigned long long)a;
unsigned __int128 y = (unsigned __int128)(unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102117
Bug ID: 102117
Summary: s390: Inefficient code for 64x64=128 signed multiply
for <= z13
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102116
Bug ID: 102116
Summary: structured binding is returned from a function as
rvalue in C++20 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is way too early, but on the other side the inlining decisions want to know
if the switch is optimizable in certain way.
So one possibility would be to lower as we currently do, but add optimizations
to s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even LLVM does this same thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2019-04-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-01-20 00:00:00 |2021-8-29
Severity|normal
65 matches
Mail list logo
