https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103913
Bug ID: 103913
Summary: Several variables declared in one declarator have
distinct types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
If you fix the loop to do
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{
dest[i].r/=src[i].g;
dest[i].g/=src[i].g;
dest[i].b/=src[i].b;
}
it's vectorized just fine (with larger than necessar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
Zhao Wei Liew changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52098|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The previous hacky patch had some testsuite regressions. I've posted a less
hacky one that doesn't trigger new failures here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/587632.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
commit r12-6219-g0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #8 from Stefan Brüns ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This is not a bug.
>
> Firstly, there's no testcase provided (as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs says is
> needed). Here's the missing testcase:
>
> #include
> std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-05
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Bug ID: 103912
Summary: ICE in a consteval function in cp_gimplify_expr, at
cp/cp-gimplify.c:557
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84699
jim x changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bogus sprintf warnings |bogus sprintf warnings due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103911
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103911
Bug ID: 103911
Summary: std::from_chars shouldn't call isdigit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The shadow maps are 1/8 of the address space, so I think that is 16TB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #9)
> /dev/sda5 709G 479G 195G 72% /
>
> Would the core file be larger than 195 Gigabytes ?
Yes, certainly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103858
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90039
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Hello. Could someone confirm please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Not a bug as mentioned, the core file just becomes too big for the limits
> (either hard or soft limits).
$ ulimit -c
unlimited
/dev/sda5 709G 479G 195G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This should fix the issue:
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386$ git diff i386.h
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
index f027608eefa..3ac0f698ae2 100644
--- a/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 52124
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52124&action=edit
archiveBuilder.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
ix=/home/slyfox/dev/git/gcc-build/__td__ CFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3'
CXXFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3' LDFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #34 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to pthaugen from comment #33)
>
> I tried the patch on a Power9 system. Execution time went from 371 seconds
> to 291.
Which I should have included is in line, or even slightly bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #33 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #32)
> Created attachment 52102 [details]
> Alternative patch
>
> This patch is a squash of several ira tweaks that together recover the
> pre-GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103909
Bug ID: 103909
Summary: co_yield of aggregate-initialized temporaries leads to
segmentation faults.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77667
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> The following patch seems to work:
... and regtests ok.
It is not really pretty, though, and does not help with apparently related PRs,
such as PR50410.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|gcc 7.5.0 (and e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The attached testcase is:
int a, b;
void foo(void)
{
if (a) {
b = 1;
asm goto ("call 0x0\n\t" : : : : next1);
next1:;
} else {
b = 1;
asm goto ("call 0x1\n\t" : : : : next2);
next2:;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to have been fixed by r258645
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77667
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=103905
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
@Jakub: It looks the problem is in expand_vec_perm_pshufb, where permutation
vector is recalculated for partial vectors:
if (vmode == V4QImode
|| vmode == V8QImode)
{
rtx m128 = GEN_INT (-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 92943, which changed state.
Bug 92943 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow with an allocated buffer with
non-constant size in known range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>From what I can see, ifcvt dump is the same between r12-1788 and r12-1789, vect
has quite a few changes in that function, but the function is fairly simple in
ifcvt, because almost nothing is inlined into i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 52123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52123&action=edit
Patch that disables XOP permute with partial vectors
Please try this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Bug ID: 103908
Summary: gcc 7.5.0 (and earlier) miscompile asm goto in O1 on
x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Created attachment 52120 [details]
> Isolated test-case
>
> Isolated test-case where only the miscompiled function
> ix86_expand_vec_extract_even_odd uses -O3.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.2.0, 4.9.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103372
Bug 103372 depends on bug 99612, which changed state.
Bug 99612 Summary: Remove "#pragma GCC system_header" from atomic file to warn
on incorrect memory order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I just did:
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*array*.C --target_board=unix/-m32" and
got:
=== g++ tests ===
Schedule of variations:
unix/-m32
Running target unix/-m32
Using /usr/shar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a431b60d1f221992e5e9f7a5c032df3b5fa35a5
commit r12-6216-g5a431b60d1f221992e5e9f7a5c032df3b5fa35a5
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103886
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022, jb at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> I'm not super-familiar with glibc, but it seems that this changes the default
> (in ./bits/timesize.h) to 64 for targets not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
AIL: g++.dg/init/array54.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes2805
# of unexpected failures5
# of expected failures 60
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unsupported tests 146
/build/gcc-master/gcc/x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101421
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The referred patch adds:
+;; Pack/unpack vector modes
+(define_mode_attr mmxpackmode
+ [(V4HI "V8QI") (V2SI "V4HI")])
+
+(define_expand "vec_pack_trunc_"
+ [(match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
+ (match_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103906
Bug ID: 103906
Summary: Illegal program not detected, ambiguous conversion
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |siddhesh at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77608
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52119|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89748
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Bug ID: 103905
Summary: [12 Regression] Miscompiled i386-expand.c with
-march=bdver1 and -O3 since r12-1789-g836328b2c99f5b8d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjeltsch at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101622
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103852
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103861
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
commit r12-6215-g708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
commit r12-6215-g708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #88 from Martin Liška ---
And the miscompiled file is i386-expand.o.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103783
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #87 from Martin Liška ---
Self-contained test-case:
$ cat options-save2.ii
char flags[16];
int one = 1, two = 2;
void
__attribute__ ((noipa))
save() {
flags[0] = one;
flags[1] = one;
flags[2] = one;
flags[3] = one;
flags[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #86 from Martin Liška ---
Optimized dump is equal:
void cl_optimization_save ()
{
vector(8) short int vect__2.20;
vector(16) char vect__2.19;
int val0.0_1;
int val1.15_3;
vector(4) int _22;
vector(4) int _25;
[local c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #85 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so the options-save.c is really miscompiled. I reduced that down to:
$ cat options-save2.ii
struct cl_optimization {
/* All have value 0. */
char x_flag_keep_gc_roots_live;
char x_flag_lifetime_dse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Yes, I understand that, and I know that it is your role to uphold these rules
(which I believe make a lot of sense in general) and that you have other
interests to consider beyond mine :)
I would still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Other options perhaps could be - (__x._M_node ? 1 : 0)
>
> That produces worse code (with a jump) at -O1
Oo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The issue is whether somebody's code breaks when upgrading from GCC 11.2 to
11.3, or when upgrading from 11.x to 12.x, and the documented policy says the
former should be avoided. https://gcc.gnu.org/devel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > or - 1 + !__x._M_node
>
> Isn't that undefined for (x - y - 1 + !x) if x and y are both null?
> We get (T*)0 - 1 + 1 which overflows twice.
You're right, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> We get (T*)0 - 1 + 1 which overflows twice.
GCC's ubsan doesn't diagnose this, but Clang's does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Well... we also try to avoid breaking changes in the standard ^^
The thing is that code that relies on the old definition will break one way or
another (and independent of compiler flags). The longer GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 103800, which changed state.
Bug 103800 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in vectorizable_phi, at
tree-vect-loop.c:7861 with -O3 since r12-5626-g0194d92c35ca8b3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103800
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88e861655b3e59bc982ba22cd6e2e7348efae866
commit r12-6211-g88e861655b3e59bc982ba22cd6e2e7348efae866
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The relevant commit is r12-1606-g4b4f5666b4c2f3aab2a9f3d53d394e390b9b682d
I'm not entirely opposed to backporting it, but we should decide carefully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #0)
> Since this change is quite significant
That is the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's a breaking change though, meaning that code that compiles now would not
compile after the backport. We generally avoid such things on the stable
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Other options perhaps could be - (__x._M_node ? 1 : 0)
That produces worse code (with a jump) at -O1
> or - 1 + !__x._M_node
Isn't that undefined for (x - y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Looks like the change causes the simpler conditional to be detected by the
vectorizer as a masked operation, which in principle makes sense:
note: vect_recog_mask_conversion_pattern: detected: iftmp.0_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
--- Comment #7 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Understood, I'll work on it then, thanks for your help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
Bug ID: 103904
Summary: [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Bug ID: 103903
Summary: Loops handling r,g,b values are not vectorized to use
power of 2 vectors even if they can
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
