[Bug tree-optimization/102486] __builtin_popcount(y&-y) is not optimized to 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102486 Luc Van Oostenryck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com

[Bug rtl-optimization/100377] needless stack adjustment when passing struct in register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377 --- Comment #3 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- > I thought there was one which I filed which is much older than those but I > can't find it. Probably also related to PR36409 and PR49157

[Bug rtl-optimization/100378] New: [Regression 9/10/11/12] arm64: lsl + asr used instead of sxth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378 Bug ID: 100378 Summary: [Regression 9/10/11/12] arm64: lsl + asr used instead of sxth Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/100377] New: needless stack adjustment when passing struct in register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377 Bug ID: 100377 Summary: needless stack adjustment when passing struct in register Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/100075] [9/10 Regression] unneeded sign extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100075 --- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Fixed on the trunk. Probably shouldn't be backported. Work great here. Thanks.

[Bug target/100056] [9/10 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #11 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Works nicely now. Thank you.

[Bug target/100028] [9/10 Regression] arm64 failure to generate bfxil

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028 --- Comment #8 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Woks nicely now. Thanks

[Bug target/100075] New: [9/10/11 Regression] unneeded sign extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100075 Bug ID: 100075 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] unneeded sign extension Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug target/100072] New: [10/11 Regression] csel vs. csetm + and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100072 Bug ID: 100072 Summary: [10/11 Regression] csel vs. csetm + and Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #7 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50585 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50585&action=edit newer testcases (with 32 -> 64-bit extensions)

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #6 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. OTOH, for the signed case things seems to be OK unless the sign extension is o

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #5 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50584 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50584&action=edit updated test cases

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. Mmmm, that's working fine for the cases I had but not in more general cases. I

[Bug target/100056] New: [9/10/11 Regression]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 Bug ID: 100056 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug target/100028] [9/10/11 Regression] arm64 failure to generate bfxil

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028 --- Comment #5 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Created attachment 50571 [details] > gcc11-pr100028.patch > > Untested fix. This solve the few cases I had. Thanks.

[Bug rtl-optimization/100046] New: compare with itself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100046 Bug ID: 100046 Summary: compare with itself Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/100028] New: arm64 failure to generate bfxil

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028 Bug ID: 100028 Summary: arm64 failure to generate bfxil Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug c/92935] typeof() on an atomic type doesn't always return the corresponding unqualified type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935 Luc Van Oostenryck changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRME