https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> Actually I take back on what is going on those 3. But I will be looking into
> it.
>
>
> x.0_1 = (signed long) x_4(D);
> _2 = x.0_1 >> 31;
> _3 = (unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
So there is another way of fixing this. take:
Trying 6 -> 12:
6: r49:SI=r50:SI>>0x1f
REG_DEAD r50:SI
12: r24:QI=r49:SI#0&0x1
REG_DEAD r49:SI
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg/i:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109919
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee0f1f2294baaecfa0c038fe7e8361949d1ebd68
commit r14-1020-gee0f1f2294baaecfa0c038fe7e8361949d1ebd68
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
--- Comment #6 from rep.dot.nop at gmail dot com
---
On 21 May 2023 01:27:29 CEST, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
>
>--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>(In reply to rep.dot@gma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
VRP starting doing this in GCC 5:
Folding statement: _5 = _4 != 0;
Folded into: _5 = (bool) _4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into this a little futher.
The problem is VRP turns !=0 into (bool) and then expand comes along and
decides that a cast to bool needs &1 because well it just. I am going to look
into see if I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rep.dot@gmail.com from comment #4)
> On 20 May 2023 00:39:45 CEST, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
> >
> >Andrew Pinski changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
--- Comment #4 from rep.dot.nop at gmail dot com
---
On 20 May 2023 00:39:45 CEST, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
>
>Andrew Pinski changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109432
Bug 109432 depends on bug 109437, which changed state.
Bug 109437 Summary: -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds is emitted at most once per frame.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109437
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109437
Benjamin Priour changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109439
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Priour ---
*** Bug 109437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|108847 |
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||108847
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109919
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simple one line fix:
```
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/objdir/gcc$ git diff
diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc
index 2070198acda..02f24c00148 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/expr.cc
@@ -12956,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Assignee|un
e-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230520 (experimental) [master r14-924-gd709841ae0f] (GCC)
[612] %
[61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb47733938b352c6d84ef342fc11d2bd478d1218
commit r11-10795-gfb47733938b352c6d84ef342fc11d2bd478d1218
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7259fd5bd4c922f396465c9cfec2ec342969f9a9
commit r12-9628-g7259fd5bd4c922f396465c9cfec2ec342969f9a9
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|Unex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like I only implemented this for do_store_flag which is good but it needs
to also implemented for do_jump too.
Take:
```
#define bool _Bool
bool j(void);
bool h(void);
bool f(bool a, bool b)
{
if(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109918
Bug ID: 109918
Summary: Unexpected -Woverloaded-virtual with virtual
conversion operators
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55128
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55128&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
This one includes the cost model here.
Did a quick test on mips to see it produces th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #6 from LIU Hao ---
gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:
```
void
ix86_print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code)
{
if (code)
{
switch (code)
{
case 'A':
switch (ASSEMBLER_DIALECT)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109917
--- Comment #2 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup of bug 109520.
>
> Where is this code located anyways?
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109520 ***
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109914
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 109915 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||141242068 at smail dot
nju.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109917
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109891
--- Comment #9 from Michel Morin ---
> (which even mentions the std::string((const char*)nullptr) case):
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/debug_mode_semantics.html
Oh, that's good to know. Understood that PEDASSERT fits better.
ome/wierton/disk/gcc-project-trunk-compile/install
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230520 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gcctk --version
gcc (GCC) 14.0.0 20230520 (experimental)
Copyright (C)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96114
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109916
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109916
Bug ID: 109916
Summary: warning reported despite of "#pragma GCC diagnostic
ignored", due to -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109915
Bug ID: 109915
Summary: --suggest-attribute=const misdiagnoses static
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Paul noted at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2023-05/msg00139.html that this
seems to have come back, but interestingly, this bug never got closed in the
first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109914
Bug ID: 109914
Summary: --suggest-attribute=pure misdiagnoses static functions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...my bad, I tried "extzv", which didn't work out as expected.
So we have shifts : bit-extract = 3 : 2.
Is it worth trying to write combine patterns to catch this? Or will there be
better lowering for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I tried with the test case, but the expensive shifts are still there except for
the cset_32bit30_not case, which improved as noted above.
cset_32bit30 however goes from the 3-instruction code to:
cset_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
Is there by chance a workaround we can apply for this downstream (some flag)?
It prevents building Chromium on arm64 for us w/ gcc unfortunately.
45 matches
Mail list logo
