https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106222
Bug ID: 106222
Summary: x86 Better code squence for __builtin_shuffle
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106184
Immad Mir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 106184, which changed state.
Bug 106184 Summary: gcc/analyzer/sm-fd.cc:545: ordering problem ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106184
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
--- Comment #9 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #8)
> Created attachment 53269 [details]
> This patch aims to handle memory issue when unpacking in cvtps2pd (version 2)
>
> Just fully tested on this patch. Changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
--- Comment #8 from Haochen Jiang ---
Created attachment 53269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53269&action=edit
This patch aims to handle memory issue when unpacking in cvtps2pd (version 2)
Just fully tested on this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106091
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 53268
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53268&action=edit
tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
--- Comment #7 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> Comment on attachment 53261 [details]
> This patch aims to handle memory issue when unpacking in cvtps2pd
>
> >@@ -9270,7 +9270,15 @@
> > (vec_select:V2SF
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106220
--- Comment #3 from Michael_S ---
-march-haswell is not very important.
I added it only because in absence of BMI extension an issue is somewhat
obscured by need to keep shift count in CL register.
-O2 is also not important. -O3 is the same. An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #53 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91037
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106221
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even more reduced (you don't need the namespace after all):
using T = decltype([](){});
template
using foo = T;
using bar = foo;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|---
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106221
dtzyvruvwhrjujdsef at bvhrk dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dtzyvruvwhrjujdsef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106221
Bug ID: 106221
Summary: cannot compile variadic arguments with a concept as
the variadic type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106211
--- Comment #4 from David Stone ---
The types for the first parameters of the inner lambda are deduced in my first
two examples, but the arity is fixed in all of them -- equal to the arity of
the outer function.
Also, `return [](any auto, auto)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106211
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question comes about variadic templates and deduction of auto.
>Further, all three compilers also accept this minor modification:
This one does need any deduction though so it is not even related.
So l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106211
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidfromonline at gmail dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106220
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O2 -march=haswell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106220
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53265&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106220
Bug ID: 106220
Summary: x86-64 optimizer forgets about shrd peephole
optimization pattern when faced with more than one in
close proximity
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106219
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 53264
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53264&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
After about 100 minutes of computation, I provide the partly reduced code.
The cvis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86007
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86007
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ștefan Talpalaru from comment #4)
> Mystery solved: half the CPU cores report LWP as disabled, the other half as
> enabled.
That has to be a kernel issue and not a GCC issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86007
--- Comment #4 from Ștefan Talpalaru ---
Mystery solved: half the CPU cores report LWP as disabled, the other half as
enabled.
Both at boot, as seen with "grep -E '(core id|lwp)' /proc/cpuinfo" and
afterwards, using the CPUID instruction: "cpuid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106211
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC also rejects this code:
(8): error C2672: 'operator __surrogate_func': no matching overloaded
function found
(8): error C2780: 'auto f()operator
()(_T3...,_T4) const': expects 2 arguments - 2 p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-06
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104684
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=106219
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Git hash range seems to be f843bea4ca5613cb..683f11843974f0bd, which is 63
commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 53261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53261
This patch aims to handle memory issue when unpacking in cvtps2pd
>@@ -9270,7 +9270,15 @@
> (vec_select:V2SF
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106219
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
from the preprocessed source:
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20220705.asan.ubsan/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/cc1plus
-quiet -I /home/dcb36/rpmbuild/BUILD/libjxl-0.6.1 -I
/home/dcb36/rpmbuild/BUILD/libjxl-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #39 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #23)
> Also I wonder if there should be an analogous -Wstrict-flex-arrays to issue
> warnings alongside changing codegen.
please take a look at com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in vect_do_peeling, at |[13 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #38 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Y Knight from comment #37)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #35)
> > I think that -Wstrict-flex-arrays will need to be cooperated with
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=N, i.e, only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106219
Bug ID: 106219
Summary: ice in vect_do_peeling, at
tree-vect-loop-manip.cc:2703
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106216
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-06
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #37 from James Y Knight ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #35)
> I think that -Wstrict-flex-arrays will need to be cooperated with
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=N, i.e, only when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N is presenting,
> -Wstrict-flex-arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53920
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #51 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
commit r13-1544-ge46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53920
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
commit r13-1544-ge46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Tue Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #36 from James Y Knight ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #34)
> > Great. Adding that flag, and eliminating the -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 option
> > from this proposal would be good.
>
> Hmm? No, -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 is still n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104684
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106218
Bug ID: 106218
Summary: Analyzer false positives with Linux kernel's err.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106217
Bug ID: 106217
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] sinking of loads prevents
vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #35 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Y Knight from comment #33)
>
> I don't understand what the -Wstrict-flex-arrays warning and its multiple
> levels is proposed to actually do.
>
> Is it supposed to warn on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106216
Bug ID: 106216
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/alias-access-path-13.c
fails for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #34 from Kees Cook ---
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 is still needed. (E.g. for proper FORTIFY coverage,
etc.) I don't have an opinion about the -W options, though.(In reply to James Y
Knight from comment #33)
> (In reply to qinzhao from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106184
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Immad Mir :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a6de2b2db500d76ac141a6ef85d336bd0f8430b
commit r13-1540-g3a6de2b2db500d76ac141a6ef85d336bd0f8430b
Author: Immad Mir
Date: Wed Jul 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #33 from James Y Knight ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #32)
> there is a Bugzilla that has been filed for GCC to request the same warning
> for GCC:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=94428
>
> -Wzero-length-arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #42 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #41)
> (In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #31)
> > And one final tidbit, `make LD=ld.bfd install prefix=/tmp/GCC-11.3` fails:
>
> Is this supposed t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
--- Comment #8 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
Consider the following code:
struct record {
unsigned char len;
unsigned short data[5];
} __attribute__((packed));
struct attribute {
unsigned char code;
struct record record
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106214
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106215
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
--- Comment #7 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
The problem with the aligned(4) attribute is that if this structure appears as
a member of an outer packed structure, it may not be "enclosed" properly
without a gap.
The warnings are pointless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106215
Bug ID: 106215
Summary: Different template parameter order invalidates
detection of more special function templates
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105854
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81420
Ion Lupascu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ion.lupascu at barclays dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105626
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65941a910911a8d452b6a6baaccafcc7a1d85c1f
commit r12-8552-g65941a910911a8d452b6a6baaccafcc7a1d85c1f
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106214
Bug ID: 106214
Summary: Vector template argument deduction fails for templated
function element
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #31)
> And one final tidbit, `make LD=ld.bfd install prefix=/tmp/GCC-11.3` fails:
Is this supposed to work?
Why aren't you using DESTDIR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106157
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
For example, in create():
[local count: 1073741824]:
_15 = MEM[(struct VideoFrame &)&videoFrame].lineSize;
_16 = (long unsigned int) _15;
_17 = MEM[(struct vector *)&videoFrame + 8B].D.4741._M_imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106157
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> the reduction probably ended up removing the initialization as that's not
> needed to reproduce the ICE
Ah.
I'm seeing a whole slew of uses before initializa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106204
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Should be fixed on trunk (for gcc 13) by the above commit.
Keeping open to backport to gcc 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106204
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b33dd7874523af5c244fff3c45be1358815691e4
commit r13-1517-gb33dd7874523af5c244fff3c45be1358815691e4
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #40 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #39)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #38)
> > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #35)
> > > (I reported it in 2012, with Jonathan Nieder's p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 65642, which changed state.
Bug 65642 Summary: [C++11] GCC rejects valid constant expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-06 00:00:00 |2022-7-6
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
a.C:39:21: error: non-constant condition for static assertion
39 | static_assert(p - q != 0);
| ~~^~~~
a.C:39:24: in 'constexpr' expansion of 'operator-(p, q).P::operator==(P(0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-06
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
--- Comment #6 from Long Deng ---
I met the same problem. I found that gcc issue this warning probably because
`struct S` can located any address, which means that `s.d` may not alignment to
4.
So as Richard said, you can use `__attribute__((pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106213
Bug ID: 106213
Summary: -Werror=deprecated-copy-dtor does not trigger warning
and error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #39 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #38)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #35)
> > (I reported it in 2012, with Jonathan Nieder's patch to fix it, but after 10
> > years, there is still n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100694
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On aarch64 we have (in expand):
;; i_4 = i_3 << 64;
(insn 10 9 11 (set (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 94 [ i ]) 8)
(subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 93 [ i ]) 0)) "100694.c":4:6 -1
(nil))
(insn 11 10 0 (set (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Oh and this appears to be a regression introduced in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Bug ID: 106212
Summary: Code becomes non-constexpr with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #38 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #35)
> (I reported it in 2012, with Jonathan Nieder's patch to fix it, but after 10
> years, there is still no reaction from the developers!)
So don't use gold t
87 matches
Mail list logo
