https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102452
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
get_three after einline w/o USE_FLEX_ARR defined (this is changing the type to
int):
:
_5 = test_2(D)->is_a;
if (_5 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
:
D.3292 = *test_2(D);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> 142 revisions in the gap, trying 24f99147b9264f8f.
Revision looks good, trying f6ccb788f29ce79a, although Aldy seems
to be in the frame for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
There's related optimizations in convert () which should ideally move to
match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #2)
> I have double checked the revision and it does start happening with it.
>
> Though I can only reproduce it with -flto. the codegen without lto seems
> the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
142 revisions in the gap, trying 24f99147b9264f8f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The other option handling bug report I saw dealing with the awk script was
> recorded as other.
Thanks Andrew! I just found there is a "other", how blind I am!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Similar optimization also applies for
fma
fmax/fmin
fabs
ldexp
ceil
floor
trunc
round
rint
nearbyint
copysign
Since AVX512-FP16 has corresponding instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
Bug ID: 102464
Summary: Miss optimization for (_Float16) sqrtf ((float) f16)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 51496 [details]
> > Prototype patch
>
> +;; convert (sign_extend:WIDE (any_logic:NARROW (memory, imm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Created attachment 51496 [details]
> Prototype patch
+;; convert (sign_extend:WIDE (any_logic:NARROW (memory, immediate)))
+;; to (any_logic:WIDE (sign_extend (memor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
Bug ID: 102463
Summary: ice in fold_using_range::relation_fold_and_or
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102462
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
The issue also exists for O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102462
Bug ID: 102462
Summary: vectorizer breaks diagnostic for array out of bound
detect.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94726
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
After r12-3278-g823685221de986a, the ICE moved slightly:
t.c:13:8: error: conflicting types for ‘a’; have ‘void *[]’
13 | void * a [ ] = { } ;
|^
t.c:5:6: note: previous declaration of ‘a’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gsocshubham at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89351
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |ICE in
|expand_expr_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
A little history here:
4.1.2 accepted the code without an ICE.
4.4-4.7 had an ICE:
:2:8: internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at tree.h:4435
4.8 accepted the code without an ICE.
4.9-7 had the sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102451
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Mind fixing it by recording the basic-block index before
> removing/replacing?
OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101319
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5098e7077bfcace3e80144e63c81be94546ced16
commit r12-3828-g5098e7077bfcace3e80144e63c81be94546ced16
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101334
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a40f2e74815a926c5f47416c29efbc17aa1ef43
commit r12-3827-g7a40f2e74815a926c5f47416c29efbc17aa1ef43
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in extract_bit_field_1 |[9/10/11/12 Regression ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.1
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:17:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102461
--- Comment #3 from Michele Martone ---
Created attachment 51502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51502&action=edit
patched gcc *ompexp file with the OMP region tree.
I am attaching patched gcc *ompexp file with the OMP regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102461
--- Comment #2 from Michele Martone ---
Created attachment 51501
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51501&action=edit
original *ompexp file with the OMP region tree
I am attaching original *ompexp file with the OMP region tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102461
Michele Martone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michelemartone at users dot
source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102461
Bug ID: 102461
Summary: overflow in omp parallel for schedule
(static,chunk_size)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51497|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80987
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 51497
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51497&action=edit
Patch
Thanks for the research, Steve.
The attached patch fixes the PR by excluding the listed func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101543
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Nevermind, didn't see this was an aarch64 bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101543
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7061
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> > I think the problem is we consider command_argument_count() as a pure
> > function,
> > so that gfc_is_constant_expr r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> Well, it is a pure function. Fortran 2018, page 327,
>
> All standard intrinsic functions are pure.
Of course you are correct. I wanted to express tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102456
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 51496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51496&action=edit
Prototype patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:83aac698835edcdb3e6d96b856bef1c5f92e5e24
commit r12-3825-g83aac698835edcdb3e6d96b856bef1c5f92e5e24
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
I have double checked the revision and it does start happening with it.
Though I can only reproduce it with -flto. the codegen without lto seems the
same.
Any ideas how to debug further?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98865
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f571e64713cc72561f84241863496e473eae4c6
commit r12-3824-g8f571e64713cc72561f84241863496e473eae4c6
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've been thinking about ways to fix this problem but only come to the
following patch. The patch results in working mostly the same for 64-bit
targets and different for 32-bit targets. In any case the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE in verify_ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
Bug ID: 102460
Summary: fortran internal compile error in coverage.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102452
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102459
Bug ID: 102459
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref,
at fortran/trans-array.c:3549
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
Bug ID: 102458
Summary: ICE tree check: expected array_type, have pointer_type
in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6136
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102457
Bug ID: 102457
Summary: [PDT] ICE in fold_convert_const_int_from_real, at
fold-const.c:2034
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102456
Bug ID: 102456
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:4594
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102455
Bug ID: 102455
Summary: ICE in verify_ctor_sanity, at cp/constexpr.c:4451
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
Bug ID: 102454
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at
gimplify.c:2958
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9329344a6d81a6a5e3bd171167ebc7b158bb44f4
commit r12-3822-g9329344a6d81a6a5e3bd171167ebc7b158bb44f4
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102453
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102453
Bug ID: 102453
Summary: buffer overflow by atomic built-ins not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
This occurs in stage3, so it's probably an optimization bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100493
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn ---
When reading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82611, I noticed that
C++17 actually requires the warning on [=, this] from a conforming
implementation:
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4659/e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100493
Mathias Stearn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102356
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> If I see correctly, it started with r11-209-g74dc179a6da33cd0.
Yes, I am confirming that my patch triggered the slow down. But the actual
problem is not RA,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Nicholas Piggin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-22 9:14 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> what's MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT in insn-modes.h? (in the build directory)
> I think it should correspond to TImode and thus be 16 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102452
Bug ID: 102452
Summary: Structs with flexible array members are not optimized
on stack
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102451
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-22
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3087d1b0a2cbe8880ccbbb67744726ff4e5d390e
commit r12-3791-g3087d1b0a2cbe8880ccbbb67744726ff4e5d390e
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102413
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51493&action=edit
gcc12-pr102413.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102451
Bug ID: 102451
Summary: Suspicious null-pointer dereference in
delete_dead_or_redundant_call
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Target Milestone|---
-include -fchecking=1 -c -g -O2
-f
PIC -W -Wall -gnatpg -nostdinc s-regpat.adb -o s-regpat.o
during GIMPLE pass: lower
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 12.0.0 20210922 (experimental) (hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11) GCC error:|
| in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102449
Bug ID: 102449
Summary: template parameter with default argument is used
without being verified during explicit specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102448
Bug ID: 102448
Summary: [12 Regression] wrong codegen in gcc in spec2017 since
24f99147b9264f8f7d9cfb2fa6bd431edfa252d2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102432
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r11-4686-g8bd9a00f4349ebcd65223e3dcdfe83867e417287
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think PR23567 is quite different, that was about stores to a place that might
not be writable, this is about making a possibly trapping conditional load
being unconditional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I mean segfaults at runtime, not ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
int a = 1, c, e, f, *j, k, o, *r = &f, s;
char b, l;
short d, *g;
unsigned h;
static void m(void);
static inline void n(int);
void p(int *q) {
while (1) {
if (*q)
break;
if (*g)
o = c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82469
--- Comment #2 from Heiko Eißfeldt ---
I took me a while to find a platform of mine where I got this error.
Right now it happens here as well:
Message:
cpp --traditional -ffreestanding -P gcc_82469.c
: internal compiler error: in _cpp_process_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> > Started with r5-6477-g3620b606822f80863488ca4883542d848d41f9f9
> This only affects early inlining decisions, so it may be useful to
> bisect this with --param e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Started with r5-6477-g3620b606822f80863488ca4883542d848d41f9f9
This only affects early inlining decisions, so it may be useful to
bisect this with --param early-inlining-insns=14
Honza
> Started with r5-6477-g3620b606822f80863488ca4883542d848d41f9f9
This only affects early inlining decisions, so it may be useful to
bisect this with --param early-inlining-insns=14
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
void m() {
int aa = 0, i = 0;
for (; i < 3; i++)
if (k < 0)
aa |= *j;
Dump of assembler code for function m:
0x00400540 <+0>: mov0x200b16(%rip),%edi# 0x60105c
0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
