https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82436
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 6 07:03:23 2017
New Revision: 253473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82436
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82437
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 6 07:11:25 2017
New Revision: 253476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82437
* c-warn.c (warn_tautological_bitwise_compariso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
chr at terma dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chr at terma dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Oct 6 07:38:51 2017
New Revision: 253477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Backport to gcc-7 PR71727 fix -mstrict-align
2017-10-06 Chri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44882
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44882
>
> --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The code in comment 1 is invalid, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82412
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82421
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 6 08:20:58 2017
New Revision: 253478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82421
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82422
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 6 08:23:56 2017
New Revision: 253479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82422
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47791
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you can't provide a testcase, then we can't do anything with it.
If the inability to provide a testcase is because it contains some proprietary
stuff that can't be made public, you always have the option t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57109
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Bug ID: 82445
Summary: ARM target generates unaligned STRD instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82317
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Oct 6 09:18:37 2017
New Revision: 253480
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253480&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR82317: S/390: Fix vec_min/vec_max builtins for IBM z13.
With IBM z1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82322
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Oct 6 09:19:46 2017
New Revision: 253481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR82322: S/390: Fix vec_ceil and friends
vec_ceil and friends are exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82322
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82317
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82397
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 6 09:27:09 2017
New Revision: 253482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82397
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 82397, which changed state.
Bug 82397 Summary: [8 Regression] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted
output: 1 in vect_analyze_data_ref_accesses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82397
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82434
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 6 09:39:07 2017
New Revision: 253483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82434
* fold-const.h (can_native_enco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82446
Bug ID: 82446
Summary: [8 Regression] Missed equalities in dr_group_sort_cmp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82446
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42311
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42311&action=edit
failed patch attempt
I tried to address this in split_constant_offset, better canonicalizing trees
there. Whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Graf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does -fno-store-merging fix it?
Yes, but it generates worse code than -march=armv5 (which does not support
STRD) does:
-march=armv6 -fno-store-merging:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82440
--- Comment #3 from Sudakshina Das ---
Again my apologies for this.
Please refer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00329.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60153
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|nclimer at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60153
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 6 10:06:14 2017
New Revision: 253484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60153
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
Bug ID: 82447
Summary: Consider removing cmp instruction while iterating on
an array of known bound
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82448
Bug ID: 82448
Summary: GCC web guide contains wrong information about Werror
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4)
> Arnd, excuse me for possibly silly question.
>
> Why is it necessary to have
> sys_bla(with correct paramters)
> and
> SyS_bla(with generic parameters)
>
> On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82449
Bug ID: 82449
Summary: code-gen error in get_rename_from_scev
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82449
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
--- Comment #13 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Fri Oct 6 11:54:51 2017
New Revision: 253487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253487&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR82396 workaround
r253236 broke AArch64 bootstrap. This is a temporary workaro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
Bug ID: 82450
Summary: Consider optimizing multidimensional arrays access
without -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82449
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop ---
This part is not affine: {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1
This is a polynomial of degree 2.
Are you sure the scev analysis reports this as affine?
I was trying to understand from the fortran code which part this scev c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Richard/Micha, thoughts on that?
None better than what you came up with. It'd solve this specific instance
of the problem (and not the one with swapped call stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82451
Bug ID: 82451
Summary: [GRAPHITE] codegen error in get_rename_from_scev
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82451
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42312
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42312&action=edit
first testcase
ICEs with -O2 -floop-nest-optimize, needs cleanup for "proper" fortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82451
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42313&action=edit
another testcase
-O2 -floop-nest-optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82452
Bug ID: 82452
Summary: defines macros for getc and putc
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82440
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Oct 6 13:25:18 2017
New Revision: 253490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Committed on behalf of Sudi Das
2017-10-06 Sudakshina Das
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82453
Bug ID: 82453
Summary: reading an allocatable array into namelist aborts with
segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82453
--- Comment #1 from fulvio ciriaco ---
Created attachment 42315
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42315&action=edit
not failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82453
--- Comment #2 from fulvio ciriaco ---
Created attachment 42316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42316&action=edit
sample input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82449
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, spop at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82449
>
> --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop ---
> This part is not affine: {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82453
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82453
--- Comment #4 from fulvio ciriaco ---
Thanks for answering.
This was the use case I imagined for f2003, when it allows allocatable
arrays. Are they otherwise any distinguishable from ordinary arrays in
this context?
Too sad.
Thank you again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #7 from Qing Zhao ---
thank you, Wilco.
> Wilco changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
>
> CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #7)
> However, I am still not very sure about the current implementation of
> -mabi=ilp32 on aarch64
> for example:
>
> qinzhao@gcc116:~/Bugs/80295$ cat t1.c
> void f (void *b) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82412
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed it is. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82299
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 6 15:50:50 2017
New Revision: 253495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82299
* decl.c (reshape_init): Suppress warn_useles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82424
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:02:13 2017
New Revision: 253496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/82424] Dont convert dependent types
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82424
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47791
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:26:00 2017
New Revision: 253497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/47791
* dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47791
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82454
Bug ID: 82454
Summary: Possible future performance regression in x86 for
64-bit constant expansions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here are some gprof timings:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds secondscalls ms/call ms/call name
28.73 2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82454
--- Comment #1 from Sudakshina Das ---
Created attachment 42318
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42318&action=edit
test2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks for getting this profile. I agree, delete_root is to be looked at. Was
this profile on trunk? Can you also post one for gcc6 or earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
This was for trunk.
This patch
Index: io.h
===
--- io.h(Revision 253377)
+++ io.h(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -773,6 +773,7 @@
extern i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82455
Bug ID: 82455
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on strcpy offset in an
out-of-bounds range
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Bug ID: 82456
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strcpy reading past the
end of an array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82299
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 6 18:00:54 2017
New Revision: 253499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253499&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82299
* decl.c (reshape_init): Suppress warn_useles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80118
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Oct 6 18:15:26 2017
New Revision: 253500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Thomas Koenig
Steven G. Kargl
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80118
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50518
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66690
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 6 19:04:25 2017
New Revision: 253502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66690
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66690
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65992
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #9 from Qing Zhao ---
Created attachment 42319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42319&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70383
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70971
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao ---
Comment on attachment 42319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42319
proposed patch
The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is incorrect. It takes a
pointer
as an operand and treats
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81963
Bug ID: 81963
Summary: ICE in stage 2 compiler while configuring libgcc in
stage2, during GIMPLE pass: cfg
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68052
Trent Piepho changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xyzzy at speakeasy dot org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The real issue is that to support DTIO with internal units I had to actually
use a gfc_unit structure. Before DTIO we never did this. At the time of doing
DTIO I did not have a 'better idea' since by the na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
For my own baseline:
gcc6: real 0m6.948s
gcc7: real 0m9.906s
gcc8: real 0m10.415s
I backported removal of the caching mentioned in comment #14 to gcc7. The two
should be identical except t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370
--- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes ---
I got off topic with this bug. It was supposed to be about emitting
vpsrlw $8, (%rsi), %xmm1# load folded into AVX512BW version
instead of
vmovdqu64 (%rsi), %xmm0 # or VEX vmovdqu;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82457
Bug ID: 82457
Summary: libgcov fork and exec hooks not always used
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68052
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That example doesn't work, here's the preprocessed source for a corrected
version:
# 1 "m.c"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 31 ""
# 1 "/usr/include/stdc-predef.h" 1 3 4
# 32 "" 2
# 1 "m.c"
# 1 "sys/m.h" 1 3 4
# 2 "m.c" 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82459
Bug ID: 82459
Summary: AVX512F instruction costs: vmovdqu8 stores may be an
extra uop, and vpmovwb is 2 uops on Skylake and not
always worth using
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68052
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82460
Bug ID: 82460
Summary: AVX512: choose between vpermi2d and vpermt2d to save
mov instructions. Also, fails to optimize away shifts
before shuffle
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82459
--- Comment #1 from Peter Cordes ---
BTW, if we *are* using vpmovwb, it supports a memory operand. It doesn't save
any front-end uops on Skylake-avx512, just code-size. Unless it means less
efficient packing in the uop cache (since all uops fro
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
