https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119943
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
I dont think this is the a vectorization issue here!
Moving a struct initialization around, seems not related to the duplicate you
mentioned, for me. Could you please check again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119943
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
Created attachment 61197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61197&action=edit
full sample code (1 file)
version above has the issue active.
gcc -o radix.exe -march=native -O3 radix.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
the test below caused significant slowdown (3 vs 11 us) using "-O3"
optimization on x64 arch (Intel 12 gen).
the critical li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108281
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
(same for types double and long-double)
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
"gcc -O3" and optional: "-funsafe-math-optimizations" (isnan)
GCC ignores ranges of float numbers for optimization, tested via
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107827
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
And what about linear equation for same-sized cases (each case has same
code-size). Which should be possible in Case 1 (I think).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107827
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> x86_64 target does not dojump table compression at all.
> But aarch64 and arm targets do:
> .L4:
> .2byte (.L103 - .Lrtx4) / 4
> .2byte
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
The cerf-lib (self-contained numeric library that provides an efficient and
accurate implementation of complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83347
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
Typo (s missing) -Wwrite-strings
but why this is not part of -Wall ?
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
It is possible to get a writeable pointer to a const "string".
Point 3 and 4 give an error or warning (as they should),
but point 1 and 2 should at le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70707
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
Problem confirmed with: gcc (GCC) 5.3.0
Usage before definition is no header problem (as suggested by Lewis).
// TestCode, no includes
# define INT_MIN (-INT_MAX - 1)
# define INT_MAX 21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70707
Alexander Kleinsorge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleks at physik dot
tu-berlin.de
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
a new warning could detect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60619
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kleinsorge ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Well your option violates C promotion rules. Basically the warning is there
> as some folks don't understand how promotion works in C when it comes to
> co
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de
GCC detects sign problems (-Wconversion -Wsign-compare -Wsign-conversion).
int i; unsigned u; if (u == i) // warning sign ..
my gcc feature suggestion
15 matches
Mail list logo
