https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, that's not enough, the issue is this is detected as reduction at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #6 from Arsen Arsenović ---
this poses another problem too, though: should big and little cores ever differ
in ISA support levels, building on big cores (which seems like a reasonable
thing to do) with -march=native could lead to gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67740
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:701363d827d45d3e3601735fa42f95644fda8b64
commit r14-4583-g701363d827d45d3e3601735fa42f95644fda8b64
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
--- Comment #2 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Thanks so much for reporting this issue, and thanks for tracing down it!
For the code, if 'lz' is 0, it is correct to return false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, that's one which could be also backported. Let me submit the other bits
upstream as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108396
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #9)
> I made a copy of rs6000-overload.def and then with a series of emacs macros
> converted the list of builtins to a script to grep for the builtins in the
> test director
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
--- Comment #2 from Egor ---
Before calling A's constructor, it will zero `x` anyway.
I was also surprised when I learned this yesterday, but it's what the standard
says.
1. `()` performs value-initialization on B:
http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111427
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:530babc2058be5f2b06b1541384e7b730c368b93
commit r14-4582-g530babc2058be5f2b06b1541384e7b730c368b93
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Thu Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111427
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:610b845a426e26fa86724e5c9d6f74c7a4baf741
commit r14-4581-g610b845a426e26fa86724e5c9d6f74c7a4baf741
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Thu Oct 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1e127de18dbee47b88fa0ce74a1c7f4d658dc68
commit r14-4571-ge1e127de18dbee47b88fa0ce74a1c7f4d658dc68
Author: Zhang, Jun
Date: Fri S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
On the date. It is the author date vs commit date.
You can see that here
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=8f1a70a4fbcc6441c70da60d4ef6db1e5635e18a
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #20 from Rui Ueyama ---
Last time I tried, mold-produced binaries crash on a real POWER10 machine, but
I couldn't debug it due to some issue (gdb's issue or something but I don't
remember exactly what that was.) Let me try again when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ca05031959d3accffe873e87d4bc4fbd22e9e9
>
> commit r12-3881-g51ca05031959d3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #19 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Rui Ueyama from comment #11)
> I'll try to add a POWER10 support to mold using Qemu.
I noticed some Power10 mold code was committed in March. Does that mean this
is "fixed" in mold now? If n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111778
Bug ID: 111778
Summary: PowerPC constant code change uses an undefined shift
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18395
Bug 18395 depends on bug 26190, which changed state.
Bug 26190 Summary: combine misses some distributivity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
บริการสินเชื่ออนุมัติง่ายทันใจ
สำหรับท่านเจ้าของกิจการที่ต้องการทุนไปหมุนเวียนในธุรกิจและขยายธุรกิจของท่าน
⏩ เอกสารไม่ยุ่งยาก อนุมัติไว
วงเงินสูง 5 ล้านบาท
⏩ มีที่จัดตั้งกิจการ บริษัท หจก.ชัดเจนสามารถตรวจสอบได้
⏩ ไม่ต้องใช้หลักทรัพย์
⏩ ติดแบล็คลิสเครดิตบูโรกู้ได้จริง 100 %
⏰ ใช้เวลาแค่ 30 นาที
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
> Note: "mary.benn...@embecosm.com" does not work for a CC address and I
> don't see another Mary Bennett.
I added Jeff to the CC who committed the patch upon Mary so h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oops, wrong system. On the failing one it shows:
makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We currently require texinfo 4.7:
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Waht version of makeinfo/texinfo is installed there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, documentation
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Bug ID: 111777
Summary: [14 regression] build breaks after
r14-4558-g400efdddf3d849
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
Looking at C++ FE, I see they construct the string literal using
build_string (4, "foo")
because I can see the terminating 0 in the pretty-printed string.
---
unit-size
align:8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0efc4b25cba1bd35b08b7dfbab0f8fc81b55c66
commit r13-7945-gf0efc4b25cba1bd35b08b7dfbab0f8fc81b55c66
Author: Andrew MacLeo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111756
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111776
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Is D correctly building that string_cst? Are D strings 0-terminated?
Yes, D strings are 0-terminated.
The way I've done it is, the string is constructed using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111774
--- Comment #3 from cpu ---
> What happens if you enable the above for GCC too?
That appears to have helped, but not closed the gap:
```
Did 39600 Ed25519 key generation operations in 1001716us (39532.2 ops/sec)
Did 41000 Ed25519 signing opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111776
Bug ID: 111776
Summary: ICE on delete expression with multiple viable
destroying operator delete
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108697
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104351
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111775
Bug ID: 111775
Summary: -Wstrict-flex-arrays missing diagnostics with unions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111774
Bug ID: 111774
Summary: boringssl performance gap between clang and gcc for
x25519 operations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Oops; the above got truncated; the string_cst prints as follows in gdb
(gdb) pt string_cst
unit-size
align:8 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x7fffea77293
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
It's complaining about the read from the string literal.
If I change the string in the reproducer from "hello world" to "foo", I see:
(gdb) pt string_cst
unit-size
align:8 warn_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> Thanks; that reproducer works for me.
...or rather, demonstrates the ICE in a way that I can see in the debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did you miss that the implicit B constructor will just call A's constructor ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111769
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
IIRC there was a bug about this specific thing which was closed as fixed with
the use of LTO ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111282
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8d418df3dc609f27487deece796d4aa69004b8c
commit r14-4561-ge8d418df3dc609f27487deece796d4aa69004b8c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111537
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> Am trying to reproduce locally, but when I run this in my BUILDDIR/gcc:
> ./gdc -B. -S -fanalyzer oob.d
> I get:
> d21: error: cannot find source code for run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases.
>
... *two* loops in a row ...
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
>
> Thanks Mikael!
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think both of these are valid things to do according to the standard and the
requirements of operator new.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
Bug ID: 111773
Summary: Inconsistent optimization of replaced operator new()
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
This is proving difficult to bisect due to _Floatn issues.
I know commit b85e79dce149df68b92ef63ca2a40ff1dfa61396 is good and
commit b939a5cc4143908ddda4b85a848c313136ff6e0c is bad.
The following glib
ported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20231011 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111771
Bug ID: 111771
Summary: Incorrect "is used uninitialized" warning, as if
zero-initialization didn't propagate through
user-provided default constructors
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think it's similar to attempting -march=native under distcc, which is already
warned about on Gentoo wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distcc
The difference here is that Intel so far decided to make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111766
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod ---
Imports: bb_3(D)
Exports: _2 bb_3(D)
_2 : bb_3(D)(I)
bb_3(D) [irange] int [0, 3] MASK 0x3 VALUE 0x0
:
_2 = bb_3(D) & 1;
if (_2 == 0)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
I checked Alderlake's L1 cachesize and it is indeed 48, and L1 cachesize in
alderlake_cost is set to 32.
But then again, we have a lot of different platforms that share the same cost
and they may have differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
/* Try to simplify the vector initialization by applying an
adjustment after the reduction has been performed. */
if (!reduc_info->reused_accumulator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I'd say "don't do this" (bootstrap with -march=native). Alternatively use a
taskset to confine to either big or little cores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111769
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
If you compile with debug info enabled the info should be already there, just
nothing looks at this (and mismatches) at link time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think on those soc we should ignore the cache info or set it to some common
value between the 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111770
Bug ID: 111770
Summary: predicated loads inactive lane values not modelled
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b783fe2e8103d97db7c5d6c1514ba16091f39f6
commit r14-4556-g2b783fe2e8103d97db7c5d6c1514ba16091f39f6
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> Created attachment 56091 [details]
> Rough patch
>
> Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls.
> It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at least,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 56091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56091&action=edit
Rough patch
Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls.
It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111769
Bug ID: 111769
Summary: Annotate function definitions and calls to facilitate
link-time checking
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111768
Bug ID: 111768
Summary: Bootstrap failure with -march=native on Intel Alder
Lake CPUs because of differing cache sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111760
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111767
Bug ID: 111767
Summary: cast __mmask32 parameter to __mmask8 from macro
function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111519
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16a4df27436c8f594a784028591dd3e47cabe5c0
commit r13-7944-g16a4df27436c8f594a784028591dd3e47cabe5c0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111519
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e75bf1985fdc9a5d3a307882a9251d8fd6e93def
commit r14-4552-ge75bf1985fdc9a5d3a307882a9251d8fd6e93def
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106245
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c41492423140e1573df68d1c98e825ae7593741f
commit r14-4551-gc41492423140e1573df68d1c98e825ae7593741f
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101955
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c41492423140e1573df68d1c98e825ae7593741f
commit r14-4551-gc41492423140e1573df68d1c98e825ae7593741f
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed O
85 matches
Mail list logo
