https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020, already5chosen at yahoo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
>
> --- Comment #15 from Michael_S ---
> Thank you.
> That does not sound too dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you want bugfixes as in this case. The cadence on the release branches is
gradually slowing down, the last release is usually about a year about the one
before that. It is already quite a lot of work to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #15 from Michael_S ---
Thank you.
That does not sound too different from what I assumed in post above.
10.1.0 is release. Expected to be used by "normal" people.
10.1.1 was for purpose of development of 10.2.0. Since release of 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The versioning is well documented https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
and the only way how things are fixed is fixing on the mainline and when needed
on still open release branches. Those will becom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #13 from Michael_S ---
I don't follow gcc versioning policy all that closely.
What is the function "micro" versions now? For internal use and experimentation
only, but not for public release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #11)
> Just to understand
> Will 10.1 and 10.2 be fixed?
No, they were already released, so can't be fixed. You can apply the changes
to them if you want. The fix is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #11 from Michael_S ---
Just to understand
Will 10.1 and 10.2 be fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f089569851ca9c8a81400dd8a159f86636ed20ec
commit r11-2949-gf089569851ca9c8a81400dd8a159f86636ed20ec
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f980cdba9e2fc0cc3f50c2c790f53b4dcd9dbe5
commit r10-8693-g9f980cdba9e2fc0cc3f50c2c790f53b4dcd9dbe5
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk we fail the SLP reduction vectorization because a VEC_PERM SLP
reduction
operation is not supported by epilogue generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #4)
> Pay attention that it's not just AVX.
> '-mavx2 -mfma -Ofast' generates different code, but at the end gives the
> same wrong result.
> Unfortunately, I have no AVX5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OK so the issue is that SLP_TREE_TWO_OPERATORS as it used to be cannot be used
to drive live operation vectorization (it does it twice but with only the
intermediate vector results). The easiest is to not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #4 from Michael_S ---
Pay attention that it's not just AVX.
'-mavx2 -mfma -Ofast' generates different code, but at the end gives the same
wrong result.
Unfortunately, I have no AVX512 hardware to test, but wouldn't be surprised if
it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
17 matches
Mail list logo
