[Bug target/115084] Missed optimization in division for AVR target, not using __*divmodpsi4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115084 --- Comment #2 from Kamil Kaznowski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > There is another bug dealing with division and truncation that was just > filed. It is a generic (non-avr) issue. I assume you mentioned this bug here: https:

[Bug c/115084] New: Missed optimization in division for AVR target, not using __*divmodpsi4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115084 Bug ID: 115084 Summary: Missed optimization in division for AVR target, not using __*divmodpsi4 Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug target/111905] -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 --- Comment #6 from Kamil Kaznowski --- :42:13: optimized: loop versioned for vectorization because of possible aliasing That's exactly the issue here! There should be no versioning here. There is no possible aliasing, and with -O2 it doesn't

[Bug target/111905] -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 --- Comment #4 from Kamil Kaznowski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Why are you using `-mprefer-vector-width=512` here? > > 512 causes the loop to be needing to be unrolled once more and that is why > the confusion happening.

[Bug target/111905] -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 --- Comment #3 from Kamil Kaznowski --- Created attachment 56166 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56166&action=edit a smaller example A smaller example. Compilation flags: -O2 -march=x86-64-v3 -std=c++23 vs -O3 -march=x86-64

[Bug c++/111905] New: -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111905 Bug ID: 111905 Summary: -O3 vectorization terribly pessimizes the code for an already unrolled loop Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/110952] New: Allocator::pointer is required to be implicitly convertible from and into a native pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110952 Bug ID: 110952 Summary: Allocator::pointer is required to be implicitly convertible from and into a native pointer Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/102568] New: "taking address of temporary array" error when passing temporary array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102568 Bug ID: 102568 Summary: "taking address of temporary array" error when passing temporary array Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/102015] [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in _Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015 --- Comment #2 from Kamil Kaznowski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66573773/is-there-a-reason-for-8-bytes- > of-size-overhead-in-libstdc-stdmultiset-map This is my post, I forgot to post a

[Bug c++/102015] New: [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in _Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015 Bug ID: 102015 Summary: [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in _Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break) Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/102014] New: [missed optimization] __uint128_t % uint64_t emits a call to __umodti3 instead of div instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102014 Bug ID: 102014 Summary: [missed optimization] __uint128_t % uint64_t emits a call to __umodti3 instead of div instruction Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRME