https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102054
Bug ID: 102054
Summary: slightly worse code as PRE on some code got disabled
for loop vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6604b336517463f9189e1c95db405a154aa7c815
commit r11-8924-g6604b336517463f9189e1c95db405a154aa7c815
Author: konglin1
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102055
Bug ID: 102055
Summary: full 128byte swap using __builtin_shuffle should
produce rev64 followed by ext
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:280b69a94f49ad449159f3be6597173c67b11176
commit r10-10069-g280b69a94f49ad449159f3be6597173c67b11176
Author: konglin1
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:357246c04dc869aec2f099e8c73f9a2bd5f030ca
commit r9-9694-g357246c04dc869aec2f099e8c73f9a2bd5f030ca
Author: konglin1
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102054
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12, backport to GCC9, GCC10 and GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101895
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Understood WRT phase ordering. That was fully expected.
>
> What I still don't understand is why moving the permute down is profitable
> here or generally wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102056
Bug ID: 102056
Summary: VEC_PERM_EXPR of different sizes are not combined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102055
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102056
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually VEC_PERM_EXPR of the same size is not optimized either:
vector char g1(vector char a)
{
vector char t= __builtin_shuffle(a,(vector
char){7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,});
vector lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98934
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This is really poor with -mavx512f even. We should be able to do it like
(define_expand "vashr3"
[(set (match_operand:VI12_128 0 "register_operand")
(ashi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77689
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Created attachment 51307 [details]
> c-ray v1.1
>
> Hmm, that's dead. See attached.
No regression on CLX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101910
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
We can only reproduce 5% regression for s3110, no regressions for others on
CLX.
And 5% regression seems to be related to code alignment which would impact
decoding efficiency, it could be considered as noise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92834
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is now the standard GCC SLP does not vectorize starting at loads
but rather starts at stores issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE: tree |[12 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This
V
foo (V x)
{
return __builtin_shuffle (x, (V) { 0, 0, 0, 0, }, (VI) { 0, 1, 6, 7});
}
Produces:
moviv1.4s, 0
ins v0.d[1], v1.d[1]
Which is better but fmov is still better
rapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure
--prefix=/home/haoxin/haoxin-data/compilers/gcc/build/ --enable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210825 (exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Saini ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ankur Saini from comment #3)
> > Fixed after the following commits:
> > e92d0ff6b5e6d4b95c04fc3e326d40efeb136086
> > 537878152ded8b7d271333b803b3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3673dcf6d6baeb67bb70ff03d4cb3f92beed0075
commit r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67bb70ff03d4cb3f92beed0075
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102058
Bug ID: 102058
Summary: 450.soplex regressed on x86_64 with -Ofast
-march=generic (by 8-15%)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
> I think pass_combine should be extended to force illegitimate constant
> to constant pool and recog load insn again, It looks like a general
> optimization that better not do it in the backend.
The issue c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> > I think pass_combine should be extended to force illegitimate constant
> > to constant pool and recog load insn again, It looks like a general
> > optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> The issue can also be solved by folding __builtin_ia32_shufps to gimple
> VEC_PERM_EXPR,
Didn't you post a patch to do that last year? What happened to it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102057
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
A recently added peephole is converting:
(insn 229 108 280 22 (parallel [
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (ashiftrt:SI (reg:SI 0 ax [orig:90 _12 ] [90])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54346
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is example code which should produce the same code:
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
v4si
foo (v4si a, v4si b)
{
v4si c = __builtin_shuffle (a, b, __extension__ (v4si) {1, 4, 2, 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101716
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87afc7b81cd44d04997add383856b2504af3afe6
commit r12-3137-g87afc7b81cd44d04997add383856b2504af3afe6
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Tue A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102057
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #18 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #17)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> > The issue can also be solved by folding __builtin_ia32_shufps to gimple
> > VEC_PERM_EXPR,
>
> Didn't you post a pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92834
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So there is a store and we vectorize it:
_188 = {_10, _14, _18, _22};
MEM[(union ._anon_7 *)&color] = _188;
_43 = color.bgra;
color ={v} {CLOBBER};
return _43;
but we fail to vectorize more becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29c77454e5ab33ce06a741eacdfbd5348fbccc95
commit r12-3138-g29c77454e5ab33ce06a741eacdfbd5348fbccc95
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Bug ID: 102059
Summary: Incorrect always_inline diagnostic in LTO mode with
#pragma GCC target("cpu=power10")
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102057
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Oooh, default argument!
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index 41d85623ad6..528116dfe2d 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -19475,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101947
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE: tree |[10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102058
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102058
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51355&action=edit
patch to add --param vect-emulated-gather for debugging
When using attached patch then 0 vs. 1 on zen2 indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric - does Ada have something like negative stride array accesses?
No, Ada does not have negative strides, all array accesses are based on the
lower bounds and counted in increasing memory addresses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It would be much nicer if the array descriptor for idx(2:1:-1) would not
use a pointer to idx(2) as the data pointer but we'd instead still represent
it as a (1:2) array but with adjusted offset (2 instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102060
Bug ID: 102060
Summary: -Wprio-ctor-dtor underlines the wrong part of the
source line
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So instead of doing *((T[0:] *)&a[ubound])[-idx] for accesses do
a[ubound - idx]?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102061
Bug ID: 102061
Summary: .constprop gets exposed in warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||102061
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bug ID: 102062
Summary: powerpc suboptimal unrolling simple array sum
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Chip Kerchner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102063
Bug ID: 102063
Summary: Default arguments should not be a SFINAE context
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102064
Bug ID: 102064
Summary: Wrong assignable check in uninitialized_fill and
uninitialized_fill_n
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-25
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #3 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101549
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7dc952f1c043ecb79aec6734175a4312696b5052
commit r11-8927-g7dc952f1c043ecb79aec6734175a4312696b5052
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101492
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbd6fcde4e2a7ce8543e9f71bcfa9ad48fda2e3e
commit r11-8928-gbbd6fcde4e2a7ce8543e9f71bcfa9ad48fda2e3e
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:918332d17c8bf0e547c847356db0817ac9f0047f
commit r11-8929-g918332d17c8bf0e547c847356db0817ac9f0047f
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #5 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101492
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.3
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Also fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102064
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The assignable checks are also missing for C++98, but there are types which can
be constructed via std::uninitialized_foo that cannot be assigned to by
std::foo
#include
#include
struct X;
struct Y
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat /tmp/basic_op.ii
enum { Unaligned, Aligned };
enum { ColMajor };
enum { ReadOnlyAccessors, DefaultProduct };
template struct traits;
struct accessors_level {
enum { has_direct_acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ankur saini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43a5d46feabd93ba78983919234f05f5fc9a0982
commit r12-3139-g43a5d46feabd93ba78983919234f05f5fc9a0982
Author: Ankur Saini
Date: Wed A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980
Ankur Saini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
And the OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION mask is set here:
/* Enable power8 fusion if we are tuning for power8, even if we aren't
generating power8 instructions. Power9 does not optimize power8 fusion
case
can be reproduced with:
- gcc version 11.2.0 (Ubuntu 11.2.0-1ubuntu2)
- gcc version 12.0.0 20210825 (experimental) (GCC)
Problem doesn't exist in:
- gcc version 10.3.0 (Ubuntu 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04)
- Ubuntu clang version
13.0.0-++20210823084033+1f0b043ae709-1~exp1~20210823184829.58
CXXFLAGS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at linux dot ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102063
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #7 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #6)
> Does _ARCH_PWR8 impact anything during the compiling?
I can answer this question from an user point of view. It's used in many
projects to indi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thibaut M. from comment #5)
> Thanks Martin!
> Do you think it can be patched?
Dunno. The pass was moved from RTL to GIMPLE and I don't see a simple way how
to fix it. It's expected such a chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #0)
> I may be unaware of a constraint of C standard here, but maintaining the two
> base addresses seems pointless,
This is an ordering problem. The unroller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102063
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Interesting, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw, -ftree-loop-vectorize -fvect-cost-model=cheap makes this 8 vectors per
iteration (and very-cheap doesn't vectorise it). Maybe overkill, esp. when
you look at the tail code, but that 8 vector core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102063
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also Jason's https://wg21.link/cwg2296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #6)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > (In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #4)
> > > I wonder if it's a Power8 architecture when those 6 optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102065
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seredinyegor at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102066
Bug ID: 102066
Summary: aarch64: Suboptimal addressing modes for SVE LD1W,
ST1W
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
Bug ID: 102067
Summary: SEGFAULT in varpool_node::get_constructor during lto1
when optimising or not using debug symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102066
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
> I guess the predicates and constraints in @aarch64_pred_mov in
> aarch64-sve.md should allow for the scaled address modes
They already allow them. I'm guessing this is an ivopts problem,
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102066
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #1)
> > I guess the predicates and constraints in @aarch64_pred_mov in
> > aarch64-sve.md should allow for the scaled address modes
> They already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048
--- Comment #5 from Zonghan Yang ---
I do agree this function should be deleted if SGI rope doesn't contain it.
Also, it's the easiest way to fix the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
Hi Martin!
Thanks for the quick reply. We don't have an easy way to do this in our current
setup: those files are built and published as a library by a different system.
We'll give it a go though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93067
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #2)
> Hi Martin!
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. We don't have an easy way to do this in our
> current setup: those files are built and published as a library by a
> di
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
