https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109982
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-3 pr109982]$ cat x.c
> struct S0 {
>long long int f0;
> } __attribute__((aligned(128)));
>
> int padding = 1;
> static struct S0 g_2415 __attribute__((al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am trying to understand the exact details here?
https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/tools/clang/docs/AttributeReference.html#exclude-from-explicit-instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
Is there a decent set of testcases that can be used to match up the
imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109982
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #4 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
>
> Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
> Is there a decent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> By the way, the patch regtests OK
>
> Do you want to do the honours or shall I?
>
> I think that this rates as an 'obvious' fix.
I think it does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #11)
> I think it does not handle the following variation of the testcase from
> the blamed patch:
This one seems to be handled by the clumsy attempt:
diff --gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109970
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d6bd830f5f9c939e8565c0341a0c6c588834484
commit r14-1304-g8d6bd830f5f9c939e8565c0341a0c6c588834484
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109997
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109997
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Isn't this a dup of bug 92067?
Sorry I mean is_constructible is recorded as PR 92067. I was reading some other
bug headline and getting confused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> + && e->symtree->n.sym->assoc->target->ref
> + && e->symtree->n.sym->assoc->target->ref->u.ar.type == AR_FULL
> + && e->symtree->n.sym->a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109997
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks pretty similar, although I don't think we even had __is_assignable when
that was filed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Uri Simchoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||urisimchoni at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109996
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There could be some alignment issues here ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109985
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm:
modref analyzing 'void boost::unordered::detail::foa::prefetch(const
void*)/3452' (ipa=0) (pure)
Analyzing flags of ssa name: p_1(D)
Analyzing stmt: __builtin_prefetch (p_1(D));
current flags of p_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #23)
> Thank you so much for looking into this.
>
> For the test case from comment #21 though, the problem is somewhere in tree
> optimizations.
>
> > unsigned c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55175&action=edit
Patch which fixes `signed < 0`
This patch improves comment #20 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> Created attachment 55175 [details]
> Patch which fixes `signed < 0`
>
> This patch improves comment #20 .
Note this patch does not work for the case of norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note the middle-end could also improve here:
/* If we are comparing a double-word integer with zero or -1, we can
convert the comparison into one involving a single word. */
if (is_int_mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109988
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Lazaric ---
Note that clang has the same flags and behaves according to the documentation,
might be some value in matching it.
If it's considered too breaking of a change, I would recommend introducing a
-iwithprefixaft
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||saifi.khan at nishan dot io
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 109981, which changed state.
Bug 109981 Summary: ICE encountered while generating header units in the given
sequence in a script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109981
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
Bug ID: 110001
Summary: [13 regression] Suboptimal code generation for
branchless binary search
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55176
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55176&action=edit
testcase
Next time please also attach the source (if it uses headers the preprocessed
source).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is looking like a register allocation issue or something changed in
expanding to rtl. maybe just it was ok on accident before GCC 13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109901
--- Comment #8 from Richard Yao ---
Created attachment 55177
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55177&action=edit
Source code for micro-benchmark.
Here is an example of how not having this optimization slows us down:
https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109907
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #26)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> > Created attachment 55175 [details]
> > Patch which fixes `signed < 0`
> >
> > This patch improves comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109965
--- Comment #5 from Saifi Khan ---
raised the issue with doxygen project folks.
https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/issues/10093
There is no direct solution or workaround as per response.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108847
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh simple way to solve this to convert:
t2_7 = (unsigned int) t_4;
_1 = t1_6 | t2_7;
t_8 = _1 != 0;
Into:
t3_8 = t1_7 != 0;
_1 = t_5 | t3_8;
Which is smaller even.
(for bit_op (bit_ior bit_and
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
