https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119732
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
After rebuilding GCC with checking enabled I get the following trace:
constexpr.core2.ii: In instantiation of ‘array convert_mask() [with _Tp =
array]’:
constexpr.core2.ii:10:22: required from here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119732
Bug ID: 119732
Summary: ICE (segfault) in reference_related_p(tree_node*,
tree_node*)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119464
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Good point on recognizing even more of these shifts. Here's an extended test
case: https://compiler-explorer.com/z/6MKPzxn9T
typedef unsigned long long V2 __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119464
Bug ID: 119464
Summary: VEC_PERM_EXPR not optimized to pslldq instruction for
AVX2 and AVX512BW
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
"two undef reads should end up the same value" folks are unreasonable anyway.
;) Losing diagnostics would be unfortunate. But I don't have enough context
here.
don't know if this helps:
FWIW, I've s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118416
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
And thank you for the detailed analysis! I really would like to see this
optimized, too!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90483
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lee.imple at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118416
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Thanks for looking into this issue!
Yes, GCC is currently the compiler that comes closest to implementing P2280 -
Clang fails on so many more examples here. However, WG21 just voted library
wording in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Bug ID: 117849
Summary: constraint variable in requires expression rejected,
but P2280R4 made it valid
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Wrt. working on a larger data set you might be interested in:
https://github.com/mattkretz/vir-simd?tab=readme-ov-file#simd-execution-policy-p0350
For the problem you seem to describe, I like to have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116514
Bug ID: 116514
Summary: known pointer alignment is not used for constant
propagation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Unless the target has a masked load instruction (e.g. AVX512) or ptr is
> > known
> > to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I applied your patch on recent trunk and the original code compiles as
expected. 👍 I can also test your second patch in that thread if you think that
would help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I can work around 'wrong1' and 'wrong3' by replacing std::is_same_v<...> with
__is_same(...).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> One issue with
>
> V load3(const unsigned long* ptr)
> {
> V ret = {};
> __builtin_memcpy(&ret, ptr, 3 * sizeof(unsigned long));
>
> is that we ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
It seems '__is_same' is not the problem here. New test case
(https://compiler-explorer.com/z/fsoc3hzMK):
---
template
constexpr bool same_size_v = s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
Bug ID: 115897
Summary: [14/15 Regression] __is_same fails for vector builtin
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115575
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Still trying to somehow verify on SPARC...
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/simd/pr115454_find_last_set.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/simd/pr115454_find_last_set.cc
index b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115575
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The test fails on x86_64 because the effective target selector 'avx512f' is
always true. Thus on non-AVX512 systems the test fails with 'illegal
instruction(s)'. That's a different issue than on SPARC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115575
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
As a simple "solution" I could change the target selector of 'dg-do run' to
'target avx512f', which makes the test match the original PR. And then make
this PR about find_last_set not working on all o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115575
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mkretz at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
--- Comment #6 from Matthia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109739
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Actually, find_last_set needs to clear padding bits as well. This fixes the
issue. Regression tests are running now.
commit b85ff52c1fb059f75bcedf103a15fce9db8bc92b
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Resolved on trunk, will backport later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
--- Comment #15 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I don't know _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH_TR1. AFAIK the simd headers are relying on
standard C++ . But with it's easy to make incorrect assumptions.
Other tests have a line:
// { dg-require-cmath "" }
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
--- Comment #13 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I opened PR115308 for the __clang__ issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
Bug ID: 115308
Summary: std::experimental::simd is not convertible to
NEON intrinsic type with Clang
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I noticed that weird special case for __clang__ and don't recall why it was
needed. I should dig up the reason or remove it, I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #7)
> FWIW, since the backport, this test started failing in gcc-13 on arm and
> aarch64 targets. Presumably this affects earlier branches as well.
>
> .../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115247
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
the regression is now PR115247
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115247
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #45 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(Alright, let's ignore the "oversized" vector for now - my
std(::experimental)::simd implementation doesn't use them anyway. It uses
aggregates of vectors matching the target SIMD width. FWIW, I pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #43 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I see this issue in SIMD programming. Example (on x86_64 with only '-O2', i.e.
without AVX512) https://compiler-explorer.com/z/K64djP356:
typedef int V __attribute__((vector_size(64)));
V gen();
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115204
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
That's why I tagged is as 'target'. I'd be happy to learn that it can be
resolved target-independently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115204
Bug ID: 115204
Summary: unnecessary stack usage and copies (of temporaries)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The last commit introduced a regression on i686 where __builtin_shufflevector
was producing MMX vectors (which can mess up the FPU). Untested patch which
resolves the issue:
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Fixed powerpc test failure on all branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114750
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I'm fairly sure it's not the same source anymore. I'll try to understand where
it goes wrong in the library, because the vector_t{0, data[0], data[1],
data[2]} expression is still optimized as expecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Hmm, it actually fails on Clang because Clang requires the vector width of both
arguments to be equal.
But yes, I guess I should make __vec_shuffle friendlier to non-GCC compilers.
I'm not sure about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I suspect resolving this is only one part of it. But I'm happy to be proven
wrong. :)
I opened PR114958 to track the simd implementation change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
Bug ID: 114958
Summary: use __builtin_shufflevector for
std::experimental::simd split and concat (at least the
common cases) to enable better optimizations
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
https://godbolt.org/z/P6cfbjT9f
#include
typedef uint64_t T;
typedef T V [[gnu::vector_size(32)]];
typedef struct simd4 {
V data;
} simd4;
typedef struct simd1 {
T data;
} simd1;
typede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The stdx::simd implementation in this area is old and mainly tuned to be
correct. I can rewrite the split and concat implementation to use
__builtin_shufflevector (which wasn't available in GCC at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Fixed in master, still need to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114803
Bug ID: 114803
Summary: simd conversion to [[gnu::vector_size(N)]] type hits
invalid code in experimental/bits/simd_builtin.h
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114750
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Resolved on master. Still need to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85048
--- Comment #15 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
So it seems that if at least one of the vector builtins involved in the
expression is 512 bits GCC needs to locally increase prefer-vector-width to
512? Or, more generally:
prefer-vector-width = max(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114783
Bug ID: 114783
Summary: [14 Regression] Equality compares of vector builtins
spill one operand to the stack
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85048
--- Comment #13 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Should I open a new PR for the remaining ((u)int64, 16) <-> (float, 16)
conversions?
https://godbolt.org/z/x3xPMYKj3
Note that __builtin_convertvector produces the code we want.
template
using V [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114750
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mkretz at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114750
Bug ID: 114750
Summary: converting load/store of simd fails compilation on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114742
Bug ID: 114742
Summary: invalid use of '__ieee128' in
and
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109964
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
looks good to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #24 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #23)
> * How do you create the benchmarks?
https://github.com/mattkretz/simd-benchmarks
Look at hypot3.cpp :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91861
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
> But NLT_UQ does not exist for non-VEX encoded
Right, one needs to compare integers and check for NaN. Like noted in the
description. Also implemented in the std::experimental::simd overloads:
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #22 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I took your hypot3_scale and reduced latency and throughput. I don't think the
sqrtmax/sqrtmin limits are correct (sqrtmax² * 3 -> infinity).
TYPE Latency Speed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #20 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Thanks, I'd be very happy if such a relatively clear implementation could make
it!
> branchfree code is always better.
Don't say it like that. Smart branching, making use of how static
branch-predic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #17 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
hypotf(a, b) is implemented using double precision and hypot(a, b) uses 80-bit
long double on i386 and x86_64 hypot does what you describe, right?
std::experimental::simd benchmarks of hypot(a, b), w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #15 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Your implementation still needs to solve:
1. Loss of precision because of division & subsequent scaling by max. Users
comparing std::hypot(x, y, z) against a simple std::sqrt(x * x + y * y + z * z)
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112698
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
OK, I can follow that reasoning. It's still a breaking change for everyone that
was using int up to this point. I guess the argument is that using int was
wrong in the first place and it just happened
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111302
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111302
Bug ID: 111302
Summary: aligned std::experimental::simd loads and stores are
not constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110583
Bug ID: 110583
Summary: [x86] missed optimizations in vector concatenation
patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110477
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Fixed on master. Will backport later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110050
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Yes, I still need to backport because the new test is also present on the
branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110050
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The issue was an incorrect condition for SIMD support, which wanted to say only
single-precision float SIMD is available. It did that by excluding double,
failing to also exclude long double.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110050
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-31
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054
Bug ID: 110054
Summary: stdx::simd masked store should not use non-temporal
store instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109964
Bug ID: 109964
Summary: auto-vectorization of shift ignores integral
promotions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108856
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 55150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55150&action=edit
proposed solution
This patch allows unsigned intrinsic types and calls vec_cntm correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
> You should backport to N-1 first [...]
That was my intent. My workflow had not yet adapted to the existence of
releases/gcc-13. Fixed.
> never use -mpower9-vector and friends
I use -mpcu in my de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
With -mcpu=power10 I see the issue. The problem has been there all the time and
only surfaced with this test. (It should also have shown on `make check-simd`
in libstdc++.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I need help on how to reproduce this error. Your first lines say that the test
was compiled with `-maltivec -mpower9-vector -O2 -Wno-psabi` but that it only
happens with POWER 10? Do I need different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mkretz at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Yes, I stopped my backporting efforts when I became aware that it's failing on
ARM. I'll get to PPC ASAP and then continue with the backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109261
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 55146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55146&action=edit
patch that resolves it for me
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
