https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
else to teach RTL DSE about this.
The severity of this is IMHO high because most of the distro vendors compile
everything with -fst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:45:38 2019
New Revision: 267820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/86322
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:58:08 2019
New Revision: 267821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
> else to teach RTL DSE about this.
> The severity of this is IMHO high because most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> This is due to nonexistent SCmode patterns. I guess that movsc pattern is
> needed here.
Can IRA allocate registers for SCmode and DCmode?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We also use magic alias set e.g. directly in RTL DSE
(ALIAS_SET_MEMORY_BARRIER).
Anyway, there are multiple MEMs that need to be treated specially. For the TLS
cases, it is e.g. on x86_64:
(insn 15 27 16 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 45407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45407&action=edit
Self-contained testcase
I've been able to produce a self-contained testcase, which may aid
debugging.
While re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #6)
> > How precise is hypot supposed to be? I know it is supposed to try and avoid
> > spurious overflow/underflow, but I am not convinced that it should ai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Bug ID: 88797
Summary: Unneeded branch added when function is inlined
(function runs faster if not inlined)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #2 from Cassio Neri ---
Created attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408&action=edit
Running example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #3 from Cassio Neri ---
The attached file is running example that shows that performance is damaged.
The code runs faster when test_f calls g instead of f where g is
bool g(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
if (x >= y) return false;
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 10 21:02:50 2019
New Revision: 267823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87305
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #4 from Cassio Neri ---
Comment on attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408
Running example
The magic numbers 4, 6, 7, 0x24924924u and 0xb6db6db7u were chosen in an
attempt to maximize the probabili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately the #c11 patch breaks the
20_util/function_objects/comparisons_pointer.cc testcase (wonder if your VRP
patch would break it too), where the testcase does exactly what has been
discussed on IRC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is the:
/* When the addresses are not directly of decls compare base and offset.
This implements some remaining parts of fold_comparison address
comparisons but still no complete part of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course only for equality comparisons, for non-equality the code is ok as is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Bug ID: 88798
Summary: AVX512BW code does not use bit-operations that work on
mask registers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Bug ID: 88799
Summary: Arm -mcpu=PROCESSOR does not result in assembly
directives for .arch and .arch_extension
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 23:20:19 2019
New Revision: 267825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88785
* config/i386/sse.md (floatv2div2sf2): Tur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked at where the code is hanging and it looks like it is hung in a loop
where it keeps calling memcpy with an incrementing by 1 length.
I set a breakpoint at the start of memcpy to break if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for missing this message. You're right.
Ditto for sph_legendre.
Putting together a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some if not all has been fixed on the trunk. There was just a few weeks ago a
bug that asked for the similar thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible for some. I'm not sure how successful it would be for
others. The thread_jumps pass runs four times and moving the warn_restrict
pass before its first instance results in dozens of regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88576
--- Comment #14 from Zack Weinberg ---
I don't see why it would _ever_ make sense for -fno-alloc-errno to default to
the setting of -fno-math-errno. The math functions and the memory allocation
functions are independent components of the C libra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47235
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 88327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80733
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
is this related to any of the new -Wtype-limits bugs that have been
filed/updated lately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warning for redefined macro |Create new switch,
|do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88629
--- Comment #4 from Cheng Wen ---
Hi, does anyone here to look at this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
So, test case #1 is fixed.
Scrolling down, there are still a few more to be done, so I'll
leave it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jan 11 06:32:10 2019
New Revision: 267829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/59345
* trans-ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #7)
> What does this do?
>
> auto __hi_exp =
> __hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
component-wise bitwise and of __hi and +inf. Or i
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
