https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104698
Bug ID: 104698
Summary: Inefficient code for DI to TI sign extend on power10
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42756
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18180
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104697
Bug ID: 104697
Summary: Memory leak with ALLOCATABLE COMPONENTS and SOURCE=
expression and POINTER
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104696
Bug ID: 104696
Summary: [12 Regression][OpenMP] Implicit mapping breaks struct
mapping
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 52518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52518&action=edit
Candidate patch
The problem is in undo_optional_reloads. Here's a fix I'm testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, we do not do anything AT here; but the patch is not on the GCC 11
branch either.
Xiong Hu, does it backport there cleanly?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104350
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104675
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f62115c9b770a66c5378f78a2d5866243d560573
commit r12-7394-gf62115c9b770a66c5378f78a2d5866243d560573
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104695
--- Comment #2 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
Yes, that is very vaguely worded. However, the std functions or builtins must
always return the same values on the same platform.
quiet nan:
libquadmath::nanq != __builtin_nanf128
signaling nan:
__b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libquadmath
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104695
Bug ID: 104695
Summary: different bit patterns in __builtin_nans and
libquadmath::nanq
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104694
Bug ID: 104694
Summary: New test case g++.dg/pr104540.C has excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104692
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3885a122f817a1b6dca4a84ba9e020d5ab2060af
commit r12-7393-g3885a122f817a1b6dca4a84ba9e020d5ab2060af
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104693
--- Comment #1 from Charles Nicholson ---
Oh, also, this warning appears to go all the way back to gcc 4.1.2, the
earliest that godbolt still supports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104693
Bug ID: 104693
Summary: Can't disable "comparison between pointer and integer"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. this has nothing to do with SFINAE. The static_assert fails when the
template is first parsed *not* when instantiated. You can verify this easily:
template
typename T::bar
f(T) { static_assert(false,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104692
Bug ID: 104692
Summary: Constant data at fixed address
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
typename T::foo
f(T) { }
template
typename T::bar
f(T) { static_assert(false, ""); }
struct X { using foo = void; };
int main()
{
X x;
f(x);
}
All compilers reject this code.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We also do the same in define_insn bodies, with a force_reg if needed.
But we do indirect via rs6000_emit_move elsewhere, so let's do that here as
well; it isn't a great idea, but consistency wins, cer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The unincluded source:
#include
#include
#include
template
std::enable_if_t
MakeFilled(const typename
std::remove_reference::type & value)
{
TContainer result{};
std::fill(result.begin(), result.end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If I change the testcase to following (so that it doesn't rely on
> __builtin_convertvector), it started ICEing with
> r0-122162-gb7aa4e9afcd3da4f09d6f982a663
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course, if AMD confirms the same, we could just revert the
__libat_feat1_init change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52517&action=edit
gcc12-pr104688.patch
Untested patch to handle it so far on the libatomic side only.
Not sure about what exactl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> It requires that the callee tells the caller that it reached end of non-void
> function without return and the callee checks if the value is actually used
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
--- Comment #1 from Leengit ---
Closely related bug: although not demonstrated in the supplied code, note that
compilation should complete successfully even if the static_assert fails to
compile because its first argument is not `constexpr` give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104691
Bug ID: 104691
Summary: SFINAE does not disable static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No.
/* The movmisalign pattern cannot fail, else the assignment
would silently be omitted. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could you just change the insn condition to test if at least one of the
operands is a reg?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #21 from Steven Munroe ---
Yes I was told by Peter Bergner that the fix from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085#c15 had been back ported
top AT15.0-1.
But when ran this test with AT15.0-1 I saw:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to cuilili from comment #24)
> (In reply to cuilili from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > > I do wonder though how CLX is fine with such access pattern ;) (did you
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unlike C++ where ubsan does detect it because the language makes it easy to do
so, I really don't see how ubsan could detect this.
It requires that the callee tells the caller that it reached end of non-void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
Bug ID: 104690
Summary: UBSan does not detect undefined behavior on function
without a specified return value
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104689
Bug ID: 104689
Summary: aarch64: libgcc: DW_CFA_val_expression is not
supported for RA_SIGN_SATE register
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104144
--- Comment #8 from Przemyslaw Wirkus ---
> Subject: [Bug target/104144] [12 Regression] build fails due to: Error:
> unknown
> architecture `armv9-a'
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104144
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #11)
> Clang does not appear to treat this pragma as a statement. Is this also the
> MSVC behavior?
Yes, I think so. I'll check that my patch is consistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> Jeff said at the end of the thread that he wouldn't mind
> if someone else approves it, so it's probably worth posting
> again.
OK, will do.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104683
--- Comment #4 from Preston Crow ---
I can see how it's documented, but many people reading that won't realize that
the instruction sets don't match all Haswell chips. Simply adding a line below
that to say "Note: Some lower-end Haswell process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
I feel we should give AMD some time to comment here. If they can commit
supporting it like Intel did, that alters the design space somewhat.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
Bug ID: 104688
Summary: gcc and libatomic can use SSE for 128-bit atomic loads
on Intel CPUs with AVX
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104687
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:219a8826cd5d7ee91165491034795b8876811817
commit r12-7391-g219a8826cd5d7ee91165491034795b8876811817
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104687
Bug ID: 104687
Summary: gcc.dg/lto/20090717_[01].c is an invalid execution
test
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I change the testcase to following (so that it doesn't rely on
__builtin_convertvector), it started ICEing with
r0-122162-gb7aa4e9afcd3da4f09d6f982a663ea2094b1f2cf
typedef short __attribute__((__vector_si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/ira-int.h b/gcc/ira-int.h
index 957604b22e9..7465af72e98 100644
--- a/gcc/ira-int.h
+++ b/gcc/ira-int.h
@@ -1379,8 +1379,9 @@ ira_object_conflict_iter_cond
(ira_object_conflict_iterator *i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104144
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Przemyslaw Wirkus from comment #6)
> Yes, I will update docs, cheers!
Any update on this, please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104684
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104463
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Both revisions affect vectorizer cost modeling only. With
> -fno-vect-cost-model it compiles faster for me but still a slow 30s and 91%
> in RA.
There are numb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Both revisions affect vectorizer cost modeling only. With -fno-vect-cost-model
it compiles faster for me but still a slow 30s and 91% in RA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104685
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Using link-time optimization is a more reliable way of detecting real errors
here btw:
rguenther@ryzen:/tmp> cat t1.c
int i;
rguenther@ryzen:/tmp> cat t2.c
float i;
int main()
{
return i;
}
rguenther@ry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52515&action=edit
Partially reduced test-case
For the test-case I get:
Bisecting latest revisions
a9e2ebe839d56416(24 Feb 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104685
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I suppose your setup will warn for
t.c
---
int i;
t2.c
---
int i;
as well. -Wl,--warn-common isn't something I'd recommend, esp. the
'multiple common of ' kind is prone to false positives. It does
catc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
>
> 2) r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d71841
to 57s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Wrong|[11 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103037
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e25dce501334053239dcc433e4c46ecbddbcb13e
commit r12-7389-ge25dce501334053239dcc433e4c46ecbddbcb13e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d713d56ec32b8c7101066619b4852b797955e24
commit r11-9623-g7d713d56ec32b8c7101066619b4852b797955e24
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d713d56ec32b8c7101066619b4852b797955e24
commit r11-9623-g7d713d56ec32b8c7101066619b4852b797955e24
Author: Tamar Christ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bb338eab3debf7742b1455146dd556b3ce3737c
commit r11-9622-g6bb338eab3debf7742b1455146dd556b3ce3737c
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bb338eab3debf7742b1455146dd556b3ce3737c
commit r11-9622-g6bb338eab3debf7742b1455146dd556b3ce3737c
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103169
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:876e7c7f0fe47bae7c1922e2683ccb5e6e3ec9fe
commit r11-9621-g876e7c7f0fe47bae7c1922e2683ccb5e6e3ec9fe
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102819
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:876e7c7f0fe47bae7c1922e2683ccb5e6e3ec9fe
commit r11-9621-g876e7c7f0fe47bae7c1922e2683ccb5e6e3ec9fe
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52514
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52514&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Bug ID: 104686
Summary: [12 Regression] Huge compile-time regression building
SPEC 2017 538.imagick_r with -march=skylake
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104685
Bug ID: 104685
Summary: multiple common of `__gcov_var'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104681
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52513&action=edit
gcc12-pr104681.patch
Patch I'm testing right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104674
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] i686 |[11 Regression] i686 sse2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104684
Bug ID: 104684
Summary: ICE: 'verify_gimple' failed (Error: non-trivial
conversion in 'component_ref')
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104674
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eabf7bbe601f2c0d87bd0a1012d7a602df2037da
commit r12-7388-geabf7bbe601f2c0d87bd0a1012d7a602df2037da
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104675
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52512&action=edit
gcc12-pr104675-2.patch
Untested fix for the issue Marc mentioned above.
In theory we could handle also integra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104683
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Same for -march=broadwell and -march=skylake (G3900) btw (just browsing Intel
Ark database). Can't figure what's the "celeron/pentium" successor to the
skylake family is to check if even newer SKUs are aff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104679
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104679
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:526fbcfa636fb7e544c1ad69101dbccecbee8b28
commit r12-7386-g526fbcfa636fb7e544c1ad69101dbccecbee8b28
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104675
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:758671b88b78d7629376b118ec6ca6bcfbabbd36
commit r12-7385-g758671b88b78d7629376b118ec6ca6bcfbabbd36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103196
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-25
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908
--- Comment #24 from cuilili ---
(In reply to cuilili from comment #23)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > I do wonder though how CLX is fine with such access pattern ;) (did you
> > test
> > with just -O2?)
>
Sorry, correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
--- Comment #9 from Krishna ---
x86_64 GNU/Linux:
I am doing this for the gcc-11.2.0
../gcc-11.2.0/configure -v --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-linux-gnu --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-11.2.0
--enable-checking=release --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
