https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jack Lloyd from comment #5)
> Jakub thank you very much for your comments, this was helpful for me in
> getting consistent rol/ror generation.
>
> Speaking as a user it's frustrating that Clang an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 12 07:22:12 2017
New Revision: 253672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82353
* gcc.target/i386/i386.exp (tests): Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 12 07:23:24 2017
New Revision: 253673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82159
* expr.c (store_field): Don't optimize away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
--- Comment #16 from chr at terma dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Created attachment 42340 [details]
> gcc8-pr82159.patch
>
> Untested fix for that.
Applied both patches to GCC 7.2.0. Works for us.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> You can use __rol{b,w,d,q} and __ror{b,w,d,q} (and their aliases) from
> ia32intrin.h. These are standardized; you have to include x86intrin.h header.
Some of those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jack Lloyd from comment #5)
> > Jakub thank you very much for your comments, this was helpful for me in
> > getting consistent rol/ror generation.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82344
Yulia Koval changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42343&action=edit
gcc8-pr82498-intrin.patch
Untested patch to fix the intrinsics.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82327
--- Comment #7 from Gianfranco ---
Now with gcc using rev 253388 everything is working again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
f1...f6 already have a LROTATE_EXPR in the .original dump. The others don't get
one until forwprop1, which is after einline, so there is a small chance of
inlining causing other optimizations that mess with ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82525
Bug ID: 82525
Summary: [GRAPHITE] codegen error for modulo operations we
cannot represent
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82344
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42344&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82526
Bug ID: 82526
Summary: Confusing error for constructor of member
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82523
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82527
Bug ID: 82527
Summary: Branch probabilities does not match on optimized
switch cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59714
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59714
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
Btw this is also totally broken in libgcc2.c:
#define isnan(x)__builtin_expect ((x) != (x), 0)
#define isfinite(x) __builtin_expect (!isnan((x) - (x)), 1)
#define isinf(x)__builtin_expect (!isnan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82528
Bug ID: 82528
Summary: Warning for conversion from bool to enum
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59714
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The algorithm isn't expecting to use FMA; it's just treating
floating-point numbers as approximate real numbers. I'm not sure why
multiplication has TRUNC, but my guess is it's about exces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Let me analyze this a bit. I suspect that the new patterns trip on some generic
RTL issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I diff the combine dumps before/after this commit, the difference is:
-(insn 32 31 33 2 (parallel [
-(set (reg:SI 160)
-(ashiftrt:SI (reg:SI 159)
-(const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (insn 66 37 38 2 (set (reg:SI 0 ax [159])
> (reg:SI 3 bx [159])) "pr82545.c":27 82 {*movsi_internal}
> (nil))
> (insn 38 66 39 2 (parallel [
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, thinking about it, such an insn isn't really reloadable.
The addb %dh, %ah and similar instructions essentially require that one of the
input operands is a zero_extract from the same pseudo/hard reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71205
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > (insn 66 37 38 2 (set (reg:SI 0 ax [159])
> > (reg:SI 3 bx [159])) "pr82545.c":27 82 {*movsi_internal}
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82529
Bug ID: 82529
Summary: Warning on unreferenced "with" is not produced
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Do we need "+Q" instead of "=Q" on LHS zero_extract patterns?
>
> That said, yes, I think it should use +Q.
> As expected, if I fix those, then LRA ICEs, becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 12 14:09:21 2017
New Revision: 253677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69728
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42346&action=edit
gcc8-pr82524.patch
Perhaps it could, but I think such a change isn't at least backportable and not
sure how mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Created attachment 42346 [details]
> gcc8-pr82524.patch
Actually, that doesn't work, we ICE on the match_dups. rtx_equal_p in the
conditions works though and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 42346 [details]
> > gcc8-pr82524.patch
>
> Actually, that doesn't work, we ICE on the match_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 42346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42346
gcc8-pr82524.patch
>@@ -9058,7 +9059,8 @@ (define_insn "*andqi_ext_2"
> (const_int 8)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82528
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|rtl-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42347
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42347&action=edit
gcc8-pr82524.patch
Nothing really needs to be XFAILed (well, haven't done full bootstrap/regtest
yet, but pr78
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82528
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82520
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And this should be considered along with PR36041 which is still an open issue?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to amker from comment #10)
> And this should be considered along with PR36041 which is still an open
> issue?
For most targets, that PR does not make a difference. It is only for targets
which do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Oct 12 17:06:29 2017
New Revision: 253685
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253685&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-12 Vladimir Makarov
Revert
2017-10-11 V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Oct 12 17:37:56 2017
New Revision: 253688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82301 - Updated test case g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-1.C (and others) in
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82301
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Oct 12 17:37:56 2017
New Revision: 253688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82301 - Updated test case g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-1.C (and others) in
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82301
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82530
Bug ID: 82530
Summary: RTEMS 4.12 SH build failure on FreeBSD 11.1 (clang)
with an error in sh_optimize_sett_clrt.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
I am not sure what to do with this failing test case.
To me, this sounds more like a problem with your test setup.
execute_command_line calls the C system() function. What
does that do on your system if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 12 19:10:34 2017
New Revision: 253695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82498
* config/i386/i386.md (*ashl3_mask_1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82531
Bug ID: 82531
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (-std=c++1z -fconcepts)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82493
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Oct 12 21:53:21 2017
New Revision: 253699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82493
* sbitmap.c (bitmap_bit_in_range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82493
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82533
Bug ID: 82533
Summary: inefficient code generation for copy loop on falkor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82533
--- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson ---
A reviewer suggested using register_offset in the address cost structure to fix
this. That doesn't prevent all reg+reg addressing modes from being generated,
though this might be fixable with some work. Howeve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82533
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 42349
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42349&action=edit
proposed fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82534
Bug ID: 82534
Summary: [meta-bug] POSIX compliant compiler options
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82535
Bug ID: 82535
Summary: gcc --help lists single dash long option names instead
of preferred double dash long option names
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82536
Bug ID: 82536
Summary: gcc docs list single dash long options instead of
preferred double dash long options
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82537
Bug ID: 82537
Summary: some long options missing double dash versions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82538
Bug ID: 82538
Summary: deprecate some single dash long option names
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fritzoreese at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Bill, do you want to backport that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
69 matches
Mail list logo
