https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88461
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 08:00:42 2018
New Revision: 267077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267077&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88461
* config/i386/sse.md (VI1248_AVX512VLBW, A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88465
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 08:08:22 2018
New Revision: 267078
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88465
* config/i386/i386.md (*movdi_internal, *m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have in *.csa still correct:
(note 6 1 4 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(note 4 6 11 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
(insn 11 4 12 2 (set (reg:CCNO 17 flags)
(compare:CCNO (reg:DI 5 di [orig:91 x ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83127
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88041
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44313
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88478
Bug ID: 88478
Summary: valgrind error in cselib_record_sets
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88420
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sc
ug. Further
> more can you check this is still happening and if so just report back with
> the exact code that builds but is giving you a segfault on the trunk branch.
I'm sorry I don't understand your requests. The compilation of this small piece
of code causes the compiler (trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
Bug ID: 88479
Summary: sanitizer should provide an option to detect
conversion to signed integer that overflows
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
quests. The compilation of this small
> piece of code causes the compiler (trunk 20181213) to crash, without further
> information.
test.cpp:2:5: error: ‘concept’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?
concept bool Concept2 = requires (T t, U u)
^~~
constexpr
test.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88480
Bug ID: 88480
Summary: libiberty's use of VLAs causing stack overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So the edge is a fake edge? Can you test for that instead, like the code
in cfgcleanup.c immediately following this already does?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88474
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've changed that to
+ && (!JUMP_P (BB_END (bb1))
+ /* Punt if the only successor is a fake edge to exit, the jump
+must be some weird one. */
+ || (single_succ_edge (bb1)->f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
Bug ID: 88481
Summary: -O1 causes optimizer to drop 'then' clause in
conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88254
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9 Regression] COMMON in a |[F18] COMMON in a legacy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88399
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Emmanuel Le Trong from comment #0)
> Both trunk and 8.2.1 segfault on this valid snippet
And 7.4.1 too. The flag -std=c++2a isn't relevant, only -fconcepts is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44313
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And for completeness, the docs have been updated:
Starting with GCC 4.3.0, GCC no longer gives an error for this case. This
change is based on the intent of the C++ language committee. As of 2010-05-28,
th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Jakub,
Can you tell whether this is a test-case problem or openmp support problem?
Thanks,
- Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That test is huge, can you narrow it to something smaller that still ICEs?
Like, bisect to a single omp target in main and corresponding fN function +
support?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88400
--- Comment #5 from hhj ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Please provide a testcase to reproduce the issue. Also note that GCC 6 is
> no longer supported. This sounds like an issue in the libsanitizer
> interceptor
> to me, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> That test is huge, can you narrow it to something smaller that still ICEs?
> Like, bisect to a single omp target in main and corresponding fN function +
> support?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 45226 [details]
> gcc9-pr88460.patch
>
> Ah, PR86660 reappeared here, copy and tweak from before that testcase has
> been adjusted. Tested jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88454
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 12:52:11 2018
New Revision: 267092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/88454
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/split-path-5.c (__cty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 12:53:19 2018
New Revision: 267093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/88460
* testsuite/libgomp.c++/for-24.C (results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
NOTE this has been discussed before and turned down IIRC. The reason is
because it is implementation defined it needs to be documented and we do
document it. Also my bet is even running it on gcc will cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88456
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, it is no longer implementation-defined behavior in C++20, but well
defined:
"Otherwise, the result is the unique value of the destination type that is
congruent to the source integer modulo 2^N, where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> > Richard Biener changed:
> >
> >What|Removed |Added
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88482
Bug ID: 88482
Summary: ICE when wrongly declaring __cxa_allocate_exception
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to trashyankes from comment #12)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to trashyankes from comment #10)
> >
> > Which GCC are you using? GCC 8.2 generates:
>
> GCC Explorer :D
>
> g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Note, it is no longer implementation-defined behavior in C++20, but well
> defined:
>
> "Otherwise, the result is the unique value of the destination type that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #2 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Created attachment 45227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45227&action=edit
precompiled source of fsch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #3 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Thanks, Alexander, for your advice, I will try to isolate this symptom further.
Added the attachment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #8 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
Thanks for the input and for confirming that "for conditional ones (both
MASK_LOAD and MASK_STORE) the support for the cases when using a mask register
rather than a vector register with mask either hasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Stepping through the backtrace, I see the following at Thread.initLocks
> (core/thread.d around line 1719).
[...]
> So there are two things. Firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Looks like there was a misunderstanding, I was probably not clear.
r263082 actually removed the regression I reported, because that commit reverts
the offending one. So current trunk is OK.
I'm looking ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88041
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Dec 13 14:41:34 2018
New Revision: 267094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Include gdc.test prefix in test names (PR testsuite/88041)
PR testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 13 14:42:43 2018
New Revision: 267095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: Fix _mm_cmpgt_epi8 with -funsigned-char
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #4 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
To isolate the cause, I suppressed several optimization options from thge -O1
group. Adding -fno-if-conversion to the options got the code correct, other -O1
options didn't change anything.
I think, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> However, quite honestly, as a volunteer contributor to an open-source project,
> I guess I'm free to choose whether I want to contribute at all, and when
> and how to contribute. I'm sure my priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88041
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Hammond ---
Thanks for sharing. I’ve seen that bug or closely related ones before. This
is definitely one of the motivating examples for this feature set.
The only question is how many years before it gets adopted (whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88483
Bug ID: 88483
Summary: Unnecessary stack alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #12 from Jeff Hammond ---
I apologize for stupidly misinterpreting the automated message as something
else. My email client did not show the true sender address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87924
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88484
Bug ID: 88484
Summary: OpenACC wait directive without wait argument but with
async clause
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88478
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Code seems ok in a valgrind version of gcc trunk revision 266400
from date Nov 25, so problem looks relatively recent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 45228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45228&action=edit
execution trace of OK static binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 45229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45229&action=edit
execution trace of KO static binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've attached the execution traces from PR25829 here for clarity.
Looking at them, I've noticed a different execution path in
build.4947.constprop.0, starting at line 5477 in the "OK" file, and line 5483
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #6)
[...]
> > Running target unix
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d execution test
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d -g execution test
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d -g -shared-libphobos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
The code shown in the opening comment looks fine to me, so please isolate the
issue further using debug counters.
Add -fdbg-cnt=if_conversion:99,if_after_combine:99 to -O1. This should lead to
broken cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 13 15:57:24 2018
New Revision: 267096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] Fix second bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
And just to be sure, can you confirm that -fno-if-conversion changes program
behavior (the testcase is not executable so I cannot check), and the issue is
not about debug info quality (i.e. that single-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88399
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks! Should this be closed as fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Bug ID: 88485
Summary: [9 regression] parse error on explicitly specialized
assignment call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88457
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> ira-max-conflict-table-size=0 might be an impossible value - Vlad?
Any size is possible. Simply in this case conflict table is not built and
simple RA (ki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #7 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Created attachment 45232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45232&action=edit
zipped asm files for three cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||headch at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #8 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Sorry, my comment was lost completely after uploading the attachment.
Try again...
So I hope, I got this right.
-fdbg-cnt=if_conversion:xx,if_after_combine:yy
xx yy result
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:01:50 2018
New Revision: 267097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88464
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
Bug ID: 88486
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at
fortran/trans-array.c:3401
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles and runs when wrapped in a program :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character(:), allocatable :: x(:)
x = ['bcd']
x = ['a'//x//'e']
print *, size(x), len(x), x
end
$ gfortran-9-20181209 z2.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
Bug ID: 88487
Summary: union prevents autovectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, I was pretty sure our current structure wasn't well suited for doing
combinations in an EBB, but I was much less sure about the analysis side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
Bug ID: 88488
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_array_constructor_subarray, at
fortran/trans-array.c:1646
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles and runs without attribute "parameter" :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n = 789
end type
type(t) :: a(2) = t()
type(t) :: b(2)
b = [a]
print *, size(b), b
end
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. I still don't see what's wrong. Are you testing only by single-stepping
in gdb, or does your program overall behave differently with/without
if-conversion?
In other words, do you see if-conversio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Update: when pointers to data are copied to local variables like below,
autovectorization starts working again.
[code]
void test3(S2* __restrict__ s1, S2* __restrict__ s2)
{
double* __restrict__ * __r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I spotted that test3 in previous comment uses structure S2 which does not have
union inside. When I changes it to use S1, I got non-vectorized code. So this
workaround does not work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Simpler test-case.
struct x
{
long long a : 61;
};
void bar (int, struct x);
int foo (int a, int b, int c, struct x d)
{
bar (a, d);
return 2;
}
This does not seem to generate ldrd, but does show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
