https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112097
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
I was maybe wrong - there is a high chance the pragma doesn't do anything here.
Someone who knows intel compiler and this things should answer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112097
Bug ID: 112097
Summary: _PSTL_EARLYEXIT_PRESENT macro doesn't correctly
identify intel compilers.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Appreciate it.
I'm still going to support gcc11 for the forseable future. Is there some easy
way you see I can confirm that this is this issue?
So that I don't create more duplicates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
FYI, this is my workaround:
```
template struct just_shuffle_test_selector
{
Selector sel;
template
auto operator()(Args... args) const
requires(std::invocable)
{
auto r = sel(args...);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
Bug ID: 110824
Summary: Gcc crashing on a lambda capture
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110679
Bug ID: 110679
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity with countr_zero
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110524
Bug ID: 110524
Summary: Internal compiler error: ../csu/libc-start.c:392
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110303
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
> so _mm_shuffle_epi32 requires a constant but since it is an argument, the
> argument, it is not a constant expression requirement.
The function is marked constexpr. So it can be a constant if you as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110303
Bug ID: 110303
Summary: In debug mode, gcc does not force compile time
evaluation for immediate arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #10 from Denis Yaroshevskiy
---
Thank you for fixing this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #5 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Tried with gcc-12, still the same issue.
gcc version 12.0.1 20220222 (experimental) [master r12-7325-g2f59f067610]
(Ubuntu 12-20220222-1ubuntu1)
Does that include the fix you talked about?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Thanks for the response, after testing with an updated gcc.
As far as the Ubuntu comment - I didn't quite understand that, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
Bug ID: 106491
Summary: ICE when compiling ArmSVE intrinsics in PCH
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
--- Comment #5 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Pragma is not going to be used in 99.9% of cases.
TBH I think that gcc should not require -funroll-loops at least on O3. This is
not a well known flag and people expect O3 to be max speed at the expense
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
My bad then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Thank you, feel free to close then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105781
Bug ID: 105781
Summary: GCC does not unroll auto-vectorized loops.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105780
Bug ID: 105780
Summary: GCC does not vectorise filling array of integers with
a value on sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
You are right, it works.
Tried in a loop, I get:
vmul.i32q8, q8, d9[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522
Bug ID: 102522
Summary: Multiplication by scalar on arm-v7 seems to generate
scalar code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100973
Bug ID: 100973
Summary: gcc does not optimise based on knowing that
`_mm256_movemask_ps` returns less than 255
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100929
--- Comment #5 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
x86 (https://godbolt.org/z/zPWbnqfPY)
Options: -O3 -mavx2
```
#include
__m256 if_else_float(__m256 x, __m256 y) {
__m256 mask = _mm256_cmp_ps(y, x, _CMP_LT_OQ);
return _mm256_blendv_ps(x, y, mas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100929
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
> Please attach your testcases to the bug report.
Is what @Andrew Pinski copied enough? I can attach the same code as file.
> I don't know if there would be issues for comparisons (with -ftrapping-mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100929
Bug ID: 100929
Summary: gcc fails to optimize less to min for SIMD code
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Also removed catch dependency from godbolt if that was the issue:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1YEoeeP93
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Created attachment 50510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50510&action=edit
Test Case (-std=c++20 -O3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
Bug ID: 99911
Summary: C++20 adl issue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
Bug ID: 99908
Summary: Arm optimisation generates a `not` instruction instead
of switching arguments of bsl
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98929
Bug ID: 98929
Summary: Internal compiler error on gcc trunk
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #14 from Denis Yaroshevskiy
---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Denis Yaroshevskiy from comment #11)
> > Previous 128bit contained a bug.
> > Here is an updated one: https://godbolt.org/z/6vdxro
> >
> > The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #11 from Denis Yaroshevskiy
---
Previous 128bit contained a bug.
Here is an updated one: https://godbolt.org/z/6vdxro
There is still a bit of a difference between 2 versions, not sure if important.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #8 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Thank you for the fast fix.
I can already see that the code is in trunk and works for both 256 and 128 bit
registers.
256: https://godbolt.org/z/5sT48f
128: https://godbolt.org/z/Exo3d9
I am a bit con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> Could you mark this bug as blocks PR98375
Done?
> ... waiting for Stage 1 of GCC 12 to be applied.)
So. the next gcc should have a fix? Fantastic! Will it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
Bug ID: 98461
Summary: Suboptimal codegen for negating a movemask
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
34 matches
Mail list logo
