https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
With -ffast-math we (awkwardly) vectorize a couple min/max at the beginning,
but clearly not the whole thing like llvm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #4 from Petr ---
I think this code is vectorizable without --fast-math. However, it seems that
once a min/max (or something else) is kept scalar it poisons the rest of the
code.
The following code works perfectly (scalar):
```
#incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> Furthermore, if I don't misread the standard, the expectation is that if an
> implementation does not support threads, it still recognizes _Thread_local
> and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
Bug ID: 87106
Summary: Group move and destruction of the source, where
possible, for speed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Aug 26 12:02:28 2018
New Revision: 263861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-26 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR libf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87107
Bug ID: 87107
Summary: Template instantiation is 50x slower than with clang++
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87050
--- Comment #9 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
> A replacement for MetaHTML is already available, we just need to switch to
> using it.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg00176.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #6 from Petr ---
I think the test-case can even be simplified to something like this:
#include
#include
struct Point {
double x, y;
void reset(double x, double y) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
}
};
void f1(Point* p,
Hi,
I have found an ICE in the transaction memory extension while
compiling a program with gcc,but unfortunately for filing a bug in the
gcc bugzilla I am unable to reduce the buggy file with creduce .
I have included the command line option -fgnu-tm while compiling it.
Does creduce support transa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Aug 26 16:31:27 2018
New Revision: 263862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263862&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87080
* typeck.c (maybe_warn_pessimizing_move):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Bug ID: 87108
Summary: Template partial specialization is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Aug 26 16:45:51 2018
New Revision: 263863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87029, Implement -Wredundant-move.
* c.opt (Wred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
Bug ID: 87109
Summary: Wrong overload picked with ref-qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86760
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess this can serve as a run-time testcase:
#include
struct C { int i; };
struct A {
operator C() & { return { 1 }; }
operator C() && { return { 2 }; }
};
C f(A a)
{
return a;
}
C f2(A a)
{
re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87110
Bug ID: 87110
Summary: tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5523
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 44600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44600&action=edit
Patch which has a problem
The attached patch shows how something could be done, but it
has one problem: The ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #5 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > Output from win_flex
> >
> > C:\parser>g++ -Xpreprocessor "C:\MinGW\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #6 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > > Output from win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86662
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #7 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > > Output from win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
miltonkbenjamin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
--- Comment #20 from Joshua Green ---
> "But if we don't know which pointer is greater, it gets more complicated:
> ..."
>
> I'm not sure that this is true. For types that are larger than 1 byte, it
> seems that one can do the subtraction after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52090
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
I believe this is probably a gdb bug. Calling the verify routine after each
step can corrupt the register state.
I don't see a way to save and restore all general registers in verify routine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #3 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44601
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44601&action=edit
C source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #4 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44602&action=edit
ELF file
compiled with command
gcc -v -save-temps -m32 -march=i386 -fcf-protection=none -o onlyR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #5 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44603
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44603&action=edit
output of gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #6 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44604&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44520
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||list+gcc-bugzilla@meyering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87111
Bug ID: 87111
Summary: erroneous builtin snprintf transformations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
>
> Joey Ye changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87096
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I don't think we "preserve" exceptional behavior consistently. That is, we
happily change code with exceptional behavior to code without if the main
computation result is the same.
44 matches
Mail list logo
