https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109304
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0b961b802dd7d9d555ff4515835a479329326e9
commit r13-6995-gd0b961b802dd7d9d555ff4515835a479329326e9
Author: Richard Biener
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109398
Bug ID: 109398
Summary: libiberty/sha1.c:234:11: warning: defining a type
within 'offsetof' is a Clang extension
[-Wgnu-offsetof-extensions]
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109399
Bug ID: 109399
Summary: RISC-V: RVV VSETVL PASS backward demand fusiton bug
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:840354060e23ff28d325af2b8422233ce14f40f8
commit r13-6997-g840354060e23ff28d325af2b8422233ce14f40f8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109400
Bug ID: 109400
Summary: Missing 'advance' optimizations for
std::istreambuf_iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107674
--- Comment #3 from Stam Markianos-Wright ---
Thank you, Andre for fixing the Part 1 in this ticket :)
The part 2 we've found to be a regression since r13-416-g485a0ae0982abe and is
also the reason why the mve_*_memory_nodes tests are currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109400
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109400
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For ranges::advance we could do something like this, but it feels like there
should be a better way to customize ranges::advance for your own iterators:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/ranges_base.h
+++ b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
Bug ID: 109401
Summary: Optimise max (a, b) + min (a, b) into a + b
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:688d126b69215db29774c249b052e52d765782b3
commit r13-6999-g688d126b69215db29774c249b052e52d765782b3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Guess it applies to other commutative expressions, like &, | or ^.
yes and == and != too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Something like this:
> (for op (somebinarops)
> (simplify
> (op:c (min:c @0 @1) (max:c @0 @1))
> (if (!FLOAT_TYPE_P(type))
Why? Commutative ops don't care
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109401
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Something like this:
> > (for op (somebinarops)
> > (simplify
> > (op:c (min:c @0 @1) (max:c @0 @1))
> > (if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109402
Bug ID: 109402
Summary: v850: non-v850e version of __muldi3() in
/libgcc/config/v850/lib1funcs.S operates sp in
reversed direction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109403
Bug ID: 109403
Summary: Alignment of common blocks not reported correctly
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
--- Comment #2 from manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note sometimes -fwrapv will optimize things because it can assume that
> overflow is defined as wrapping and this is one case that is true. Yes i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109404
Bug ID: 109404
Summary: tree check: expected identifier_node, have
template_id_expr in dump_decl, at cp/error.cc:1301
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109400
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Additionally, std::ranges::advance is not specialized for
> std::istreambuf_iterator so just increments character by character. The
> ranges::advance(i, n) f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109107
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1aca26b707471ce8051bd03b3fb2217bcdf2df0
commit r13-7001-gc1aca26b707471ce8051bd03b3fb2217bcdf2df0
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109404
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109405
Bug ID: 109405
Summary: Should class final decoration result in larger
unique_ptr with deleter ?
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109405
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109405
--- Comment #2 from Richard Hazlewood ---
Ah, ok. Thanks for quick response.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The insn with HImode subreg comes from RTL DSE, before DSE we have:
(insn 36 35 39 2 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 65 frame)
(const_int -64 [0xffc0])) [2 S4 A128])
(r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce243c9eefc2728cb8743ebbcb84c3e08236f06a
commit r13-7002-gce243c9eefc2728cb8743ebbcb84c3e08236f06a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109406
Bug ID: 109406
Summary: Missing use of aarch64 SVE2 unpredicated integer
multiply
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109406
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54809&action=edit
gcc13-pr109040.patch
The following patch seems to fix it at least when eyeballing the testcase in a
cross-comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #37 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #36)
>
> I considered pointers to arrays:
>
> struct P {
> int n;
> char (*buf)[.n];
> };
>
Okay.
Then for the field "buf", it has a pointer typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109407
Bug ID: 109407
Summary: instruction cmpxchgl run error when using with g++ -O
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109396
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109408
Bug ID: 109408
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in decide_about_value, at
ipa-cp.cc:6154
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109409
Bug ID: 109409
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in check_format_arg, at
c-family/c-format.cc:1777
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Bug ID: 109410
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109411
Bug ID: 109411
Summary: missing debug information with statement frontiers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109412
Bug ID: 109412
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.cc:2627
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109411
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #38 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Dienstag, dem 04.04.2023 um 15:07 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #37 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109412
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c57a93f647511cf7a3005f1197a1da03b5e3a1b0
commit r13-7003-gc57a93f647511cf7a3005f1197a1da03b5e3a1b0
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109412
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
May be related to bug 107682.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109413
Bug ID: 109413
Summary: [OpenMP] ICE for 'OMP ERROR at(compilation)' when
using a named constant/parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109406
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109402
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
r0-44780-g8376061dbecc aka
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/m3wuqam1t4@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com/
It has been broken for almost 21 years even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
--- Comment #6 from Damian ---
Hello Jakub,
many thanks for you help :-)
Damian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
Damian changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Damian ---
Hello J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS means that subword register operations in RTL are
actually performed on the whole word register by the machine, e.g.. for
(insn 47 35 39 2 (set (reg:HI 175)
(subreg:HI (reg:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #39 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #38)
> struct foo {
>int n;
>char (*buf)[.n];
> };
>
> void store(struct foo* p, int a, int b) { (*p->buf)[a] = b; }
>
> int main()
> {
> stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109404
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The error that is being trying to print is:
:8:27: error: 'constexpr' static data member 'is_iter< >' must have an initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109356
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
A different example where GCC does a good job of indicating the line number of
a missing comma problem.
https://godbolt.org/z/asGhE3W17
:6:5: error: expected '}' before '{' token
6 | {"G", "H"},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109409
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Variable length arrays can't be initialized. */
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (array_size) == INTEGER_CST);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The broken IR has been there since at least 4.9.0:
:
_1 = x_4(D) > 41;
baz (x_4(D), y_5(D));
goto ;
:
ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER (0);
:
_8 = y_5(D) != 0;
_9 = x_4(D) == 42;
_11 = x_4(D) > 42;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109137
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
As a heavy consumer of the branch for our distribution, I'd say it was a (nice)
surprise, but then I wasn't expecting it to end up exposing a latent bug (or
making it worse).
At the end of the day, not much ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109399
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdc5abbdcfb65d415af6c40230f8f07872e51e49
commit r13-7008-gfdc5abbdcfb65d415af6c40230f8f07872e51e49
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Tue Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109414
Bug ID: 109414
Summary: RISC-V: unnecessary sext.w in rv64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109414
--- Comment #2 from Sinan ---
commit 23d9f62c50d935462ecda5516746037a474c25cd looks like a solution for this.
like adding a new pattern for `not`
```
(define_insn "*one_cmpl_subreg"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109414
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sinan from comment #2)
> commit 23d9f62c50d935462ecda5516746037a474c25cd looks like a solution for
> this.
r13-4150-g23d9f62c50d935
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
Bug ID: 109415
Summary: No predefined macros to differentiate between ARM
Cortex-M33 and Cortex-M55
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why there should be a define here? The command line will be
different between the two so you could just stick a -DXYZ somewhere or handle
it in a header file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109414
--- Comment #4 from Sinan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Actually this more related to WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS .
>
> (insn 7 4 8 2 (set (reg:SI 77)
> (plus:SI (subreg/s/u:SI (reg/v:DI 74 [ x ]) 0)
> (cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/ARM-software/acle Does not define one either ...
That is it does not define ARMv8.1-m vs ARMv8-m difference either ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109351
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615074.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #3 from vedant ---
in arm compiler i have found __ARM_ARCH_8M_MAIN__ and __ARM_ARCH_8_1M_MAIN__
for CM33 and CM55 respectively.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Depending on the feature you are testing for, you could use some other macros.
e.g. __ARM_FEATURE_PAUTH, __ARM_FEATURE_BTI, __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vedant from comment #3)
> in arm compiler i have found __ARM_ARCH_8M_MAIN__ and __ARM_ARCH_8_1M_MAIN__
> for CM33 and CM55 respectively.
As far as I can tell those macros are not documented in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also I noticed the ACLE is confusing for any of the -m profile stuff and mostly
just references the -a profile too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415
--- Comment #7 from vedant ---
in ARM and IAR as well ARMv8.1-m vs ARMv8-m have different macros. it is needed
to maintain code compatibility in different build ecosystems. instead of
specifying -DXYZ everywhere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109416
Bug ID: 109416
Summary: Missed constant propagation cases after reload
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109416
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note aarch64 issue is totally different:
(insn 13 6 14 2 (set (reg:DI 2 x2 [94])
(const_int 1048575 [0xf])) "/app/example.cpp":5:10 65
{*movdi_aarch64}
(nil))
(insn 14 13 8 2 (set (reg:DI 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-05
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 54811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54811&action=edit
Fix for this PR
I was sufficiently intrigued by this bug that I decided that I would look into
it right away. Af
89 matches
Mail list logo
