https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70894
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This specific builtin was removed in GCC 12 by r12-2848.
But here is a testcase which still ICEs on the trunk:
typedef __simd64_int8_t int8x8_t;
int8x8_t
g (signed char __a, int8x8_t __b, const int __c)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103830
Bug ID: 103830
Summary: volatile optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103653
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes this changed in C++23 so auto(X) creates an rvalue of the decayed type of
x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103830
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I think it is rather common to have something at address zero,
> for instance interrupt tables or device registers,
> and therefore it's not OK to optimize those volatile accesses away.
-fno-delete-null-po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103728
--- Comment #4 from Pierrick Bouvier ---
Thanks for your suggestion.
We will follow this to upgrade our compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103728
Pierrick Bouvier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103830
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|ipa
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83078
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The trunk gives:
/app/example.f90:7:20:
7 |type(t) :: x = t([1, 2])
|1
Error: Bad array spec of component 'a' referenced in structure constructor at
(1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.1, 11.2.1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2
Summary|ICE with inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98076
--- Comment #9 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
After my patch, measurements seem to indicate the output of integers is mostly
bound the library overhead. Inspection of the various itoa/btoa/otoa/xtoa
functions seems to show they're reasonably ef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
Bug ID: 103831
Summary: views::lazy_split accepts Pattern as span when
V is input_range
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103832
Bug ID: 103832
Summary: vectorized code segfaults due to misaligned access
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103833
Bug ID: 103833
Summary: Overloaded static member function cannot be resolved
unlike overloaded global function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49148
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d87483015d476a95f521f0c9dcf6988ca889063b
commit r12-6118-gd87483015d476a95f521f0c9dcf6988ca889063b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Dec 24 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103834
Bug ID: 103834
Summary: ICE: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1
with custom flags
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103835
Bug ID: 103835
Summary: Bogus sprintf warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103836
Bug ID: 103836
Summary: '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/ -fopenacc
--param openacc-kernels=decompose
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Please let me add a digression, is the standard overconstrained the definition
of tiny_range?
In the current standard, it seems that only single_view and empty_view satisfy
tiny_range. However, std::array and span or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103837
Bug ID: 103837
Summary: [12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/
-Og -fmove-loop-invariants -fnon-call-exceptions
-fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
So, even modifying gfc_sym_type() in trans-types.c to emit the proper type does
not fix the issue. Why? Because the rug is pulled under our feet later. Turns
out there is a function that deals with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 52062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52062&action=edit
Patch, v1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103838
Bug ID: 103838
Summary: [11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length)
w/ -O2 --param max-early-inliner-iterations=0 --param
max-inline-insns-auto=2
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Wait, there is more, lower in gfc_conv_scalar_char_value():
/* If we have a constant character expression, make it into an
integer. */
if ((*expr)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32732
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103839
Bug ID: 103839
Summary: __builtin_clear_padding doesn't zero alignment holes
of unions with fields that overlap padding
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103839
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #0)
> I can work around this by setting DECL_PADDING_P on all fields in unions
> except the first. However I suspect this is a mistake, and the proper thing
> to do would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103839
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For __builtin_clear_padding builtin, that behavior is completely intentional,
for unions the compiler most of the time doesn't know which union member is
currently active, so it acts conservatively, only cle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103823
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Did not work: I think it's because it's lto-wrapper not lto1.
Executing on host: /private/tmp/ibin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/private/tmp/ibin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../ /tmp/gcc-darwin-arm6
4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103823
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 52064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52064&action=edit
Revised patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103839
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> For __builtin_clear_padding builtin, that behavior is completely
> intentional, for unions the compiler most of the time doesn't know which
> union member is curre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103835
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-26
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103823
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #8)
> Created attachment 52064 [details]
> Revised patch
Can you submit this? But it looks correct. And thanks for correcting my patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103838
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61818
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33717
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
#include
#define rdtscl(low) \
__asm__ __volatile__ ("rdtsc" : "=a" (low) : : "edx")
int main() {
unsigned int x[100];
unsigned int y[100];
unsigned int z[100];
long a,b,c;
size_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33717
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does better now since GCC 10:
.L2:
movl(%ebx,%ecx,4), %eax
xorl%edx, %edx
addl$-1, %eax
adcl$0, %edx
addl%eax, %esi
adcl%edx, %edi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23970
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We are able to do the LIM at -O3 which enables loop unswitching.
I wonder if there is a way to enable a limited form of loop unswitching for -O2
where one branch of the loop to unswitch is empty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103840
Bug ID: 103840
Summary: d: Errors message: Please submit a full bug report in
testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103840
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
In both cases, the dmd front-end has an error with %zu as a format specifier in
the message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51954
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We get this now:
movq%rdi, %rax
movq%rsi, %rdx
negq%rax
adcq$0, %rdx
negq%rdx
ICC produces:
xorl %edx, %edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 64745, which changed state.
Bug 64745 Summary: Generic vectorization missed opportunities
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64745
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79349
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #5 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Change testcase a little bit, gcc now can generate lock btc
void func1();
void func(unsigned long *counter)
{
if (__atomic_fetch_xor(counter, 1, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) & 1) {
func1();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-
> wrapper
> Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> I tried it on a x86_64 cfarm machine:
>
> /home/linkw/gcc/gcc-test/configure --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --target=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --prefix=/home/linkw/gcc/install/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2017-12-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103802
--- Comment #1 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
MOVE_MAX_PIECES is 4 on m32 but it is 8 on m64, then estimate_move_cost is
different between them 2 vs 1 for “((size + MOVE_MAX_PIECES - 1) /
MOVE_MAX_PIECES)".
recip-3.m32.c.172t.cunroll:
BB:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> Change testcase a little bit, gcc now can generate lock btc
>
>
> void func1();
>
> void func(unsigned long *counter)
> {
> if (__atomic_fetch_xor(counter, 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103802
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-funroll-loops could work around this, is this reasonable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #16 from Arseny Solokha ---
Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's configure
detects at build time?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-27
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bmburstein at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 89922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-06-07 00:00:00 |2021-12-26
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82991
Bug 82991 depends on bug 83142, which changed state.
Bug 83142 Summary: Missed tail-call opportunity with memmove and other
mem*/str* functions which return the first argument back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83142
Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88361
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
is executed at most 19 (bounded by 19) + 1 times in loop 1.
Analyzing # of iterations of loop 1
exit condition [19, + , 4294967295] != 0
bounds on difference of bases: -19 ... -19
result:
# of ite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88428
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's
> configure detects at build time?
Good point, what's the version of binutils you used? Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 77438, which changed state.
Bug 77438 Summary: Vector lowering should also consider larger vector sizes
(MMX -> SSE)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #18 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's
> > configure detects at build time?
>
> Go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2019-01-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #19 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's
> > configure detects at build time?
>
> bt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-27
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94790
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 95922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-08-16 00:00:00 |2021-12-26
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #20 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #19)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> > > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-10 00:00:00 |2021-12-27
--- Comment #21 from Kewen Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #22 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #21)
> After typing these checks, I just tried and realized that my local
> cross-build on ppc64le can reproduce this if I specify -mlong-double-128. So
> Arseny's local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #23 from Arseny Solokha ---
And, for the record:
(gdb) p TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
$1 = true
(gdb) p TARGET_HARD_FLOAT
$2 = false
(gdb) p TARGET_IEEEQUAD
$3 = 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code,
|
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
