https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105372
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 105372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org|avieira at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I can't reproduce but I also don't see how the code could crash there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f77738c3b44cb6b7bfe2a7ef823a5d9d75c0e79
commit r12-8239-g4f77738c3b44cb6b7bfe2a7ef823a5d9d75c0e79
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6e22db8564827c82108e0b7fa1a84675379c12b
commit r12-8240-gb6e22db8564827c82108e0b7fa1a84675379c12b
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105206
Bug 105206 depends on bug 89125, which changed state.
Bug 89125 Summary: Misoptimization of converting sin(x) and cos(x) into
sincos(x,&s,&c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105369
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The preprocessor can't tell if an expression has side effects. I have no idea
how easy it would be (or if it's even possible) for the front end to tell that
an expression was duplicated from a single macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 07:28:50AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab91c10792cd3a1ba1495aa30a34ca17b043bafb
commit r12-8241-gab91c10792cd3a1ba1495aa30a34ca17b043bafb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
Boris Kolpackov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 98760, which changed state.
Bug 98760 Summary: [modules] ICE in add_module_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104076, which changed state.
Bug 104076 Summary: bogus -Wdangling-pointer on a conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(gdb) disas
Dump of assembler code for function powi_cost(long):
0x01538160 <+0>: push %r14
0x01538162 <+2>: mov$0x20,%ecx
0x01538167 <+7>: push %r13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So IL wise the issue is that we go from
:
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_size = 2;
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_data = "so";
_1 = std::end (&candidates(address-taken));
_2 = std::begin (&candi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I think the issue might be in the:
> 1463
> 1464 /* Ignore the reciprocal when calculating the cost. */
> 1465 val = (n < 0) ? -n : n;
expression, for the case n == LONG_MIN, but I am not a l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Might be easier to reproduce using ubsan too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change was completely intentional, to fix Solaris/x86 etc.
If there is not an efficient aligned alloc, we don't want struct
gomp_work_share to require 64-byte alignment (because normal allocator can't
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does
--- libgomp/libgomp.h.jj2022-01-11 23:11:23.890269075 +0100
+++ libgomp/libgomp.h 2022-04-25 11:20:09.744103064 +0200
@@ -717,6 +717,13 @@ struct gomp_team
/* This barrier is used for most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104662
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
Bug ID: 105373
Summary: miscompile involving lambda coroutines and an object
bitwise copied instead of via the copy constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
So the bad "head" can be fixed via
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index c74edd1aaef..8f9f26e0a82 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -3580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0e170f72f8bfaa2a64e1d09ebdfd48f917420f1
commit r12-8242-gf0e170f72f8bfaa2a64e1d09ebdfd48f917420f1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Does
> --- libgomp/libgomp.h.jj 2022-01-11 23:11:23.890269075 +0100
> +++ libgomp/libgomp.h 2022-04-25 11:20:09.744103064 +0200
> @@ -717,6 +717,13 @@ struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can confirm the patch fixes the testcase for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Summary|[10/11/12 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52864
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52864&action=edit
gcc12-pr105367-2.patch
Variant patch (smaller, just i386 backend). Advantage of the first one is that
we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 52864 [details]
> gcc12-pr105367-2.patch
>
> Variant patch (smaller, just i386 backend). Advantage of the first one is
> that
> we can use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #1 from Avi Kivity ---
I randomly looked at 023t.ssa (mainly because I recognized the acronym).
_45 = frame_ptr_182(D)->__closure;
_46 = _45->__this;
frame_ptr_182(D)->D.2159984_4_7 =
_46->_config.memtable_to_cache_scheduling_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still trying to understand where the problem is.
In work.c (gomp_init_work_share), there are 3 cases, one is ordered == 0,
another one ordered == 1, another one bigger numbers. The first one doesn't
care,
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc26f3037a18b9a958b4ac2a1363149a7fccd39
commit r12-8243-g6cc26f3037a18b9a958b4ac2a1363149a7fccd39
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or is the problem mainly in code like
#define INLINE_ORDERED_TEAM_IDS_OFF \
((offsetof (struct gomp_work_share, inline_ordered_team_ids) \
+ __alignof__ (long long) - 1) & ~(__alignof__ (long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Still trying to understand where the problem is.
> In work.c (gomp_init_work_share), there are 3 cases, one is ordered == 0,
> another one ordered == 1, another on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Or is the problem mainly in code like
> #define INLINE_ORDERED_TEAM_IDS_OFF \
> ((offsetof (struct gomp_work_share, inline_ordered_team_ids) \
> + _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52865&action=edit
gcc12-pr105358.patch
So what about this? All the newly added comparisons should fold into true or
false at co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity ---
I see it in 006t.gimple too:
try
{
_50 = frame_ptr->__closure;
_51 = _50->__this;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Bug ID: 105374
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.cc:2580 during GIMPLE pass: reassoc since
r12-7338-g884f77b489510e1df9db2889b60c5df6fcda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity ---
I see this alleged copy in gcc 10.2.1 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
Bug ID: 105375
Summary: std::packaged_task has no deduction guide.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #1 from raldone01 ---
Created attachment 52866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52866&action=edit
main.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #2 from raldone01 ---
Created attachment 52867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52867&action=edit
All the request files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105347
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #32)
> The diff with ! added is quite short, I've yet have to measure any
> effect on LBM:
>
> --- streamcollide.s.orig2022-04-25 11:37:01.638733951 +0200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105364
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=102178
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
As noted the effect of
if(...) {
ux = 0.005;
uy = 0.002;
uz = 0.000;
}
is PRE of most(!) dependent instructions, creating
# prephitmp_1099 = PHI <_1098(6),
6.4997172499889149648879538
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|13.0
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
r12-8242-20220425114659-gf0e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah it's noted as a DR at
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/packaged_task#Defect_reports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105376
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Bug ID: 105377
Summary: Likely a misleading clang warning
-Wc++20-attribute-extensions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, no idea where exactly to put the testcase to and what dg-* directives to
use, arm testcases is something I'm really not familiar with.
Perhaps gcc.target/arm/mve/general
and
/* { dg-do compile } */
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #5 from raldone01 ---
Thank you for your reply.
What does that mean?
Are defect reports updates for older standards?
Is it meant to be available at some point in c++17?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, I'd prefer to keep it the way it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105276
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:362e2a9c6297203bcf7f66bfb51dffb82b42d3b3
commit r12-8246-g362e2a9c6297203bcf7f66bfb51dffb82b42d3b3
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105378
Bug ID: 105378
Summary: [OpenMP][5.1] 'nowait' on 'taskwait' not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105276
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Other MVE tests are in gcc.target/arm/simd/ (eg mve-vcmp-f32.c), maybe it's
best to keep them in the same place?
Regarding the dg-* directives, I suspect you need arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok since the
test involv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But we don['t want to use gnu++17 because we want the compiler to be built
using portable ISO C++17. An unrecognized attribute is a portable ISO C++17
construct, it just doesn't do anything (except maybe g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to raldone01 from comment #5)
> Thank you for your reply.
> What does that mean?
As it says at the link in comment 4, "The following behavior-changing defect
reports were applied retroactively t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira ---
I understand. I'm just trying to avoid having to add code for a corner-case.
People don't usually parse empty buffers, so it's usually fine to allow it to
proceed and discover an EOF condition.
Anyway, wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ba397e9f93d3abc93a6ecbabc3d873489a6fb7f
commit r12-8248-g1ba397e9f93d3abc93a6ecbabc3d873489a6fb7f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Regarding the dg-* directives, I suspect you need arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok since
> the test involves floats.
I was wrong and your proposal of arm_v8_1m_mve_ok looks fine (since actually
there is no ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5cee0480c10bafa8ed65d49e5cedca23d98d7b7
commit r12-8249-ga5cee0480c10bafa8ed65d49e5cedca23d98d7b7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Bug ID: 105379
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_array_spec(): Array
spec clobbered
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
Bug ID: 105380
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:6317
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wak
1,1
@@ -39,6 +40,6 @@ bswap_int_dbl:
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.size bswap_int_dbl,.-bswap_int_dbl
- .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220310 (experimental)"
+ .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental)"
.gnu_attribute 4, 1
.section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Btw. started with r12-7338-g884f77b489 if that helps.
Oh, it was already discovered by Jakub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And that is what the {xfail {has_arch_pwr10 && {! has_arch_ppc64}}}
is for. Does that not work for you? Why doesn't it, it works fine here?
It would be nice if this unimportant edge case was costed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Somehow that doesn't really work, in the log I see that has_arch_pwr10 is
tested but yields it is not on:
/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/ arch_pwr101791933.c
-m32 -fdiagnostics-pla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The test generates the expected code for all other cpus.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As it uses -mdejagnu-cpu=power10, it only tests power10 code generation,
nothing else.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, lol. Yes. But please don't change this yet, it should work thew way it
is now, this should be fixed. Do you see what makes the _ARCH_PWR10 test
fail on your system?
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
