https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The vectorizer has not much to do with the warning issue except for the IR
change into FRE.
Before fre5:
_11 = &last_14(D)->s;
memcpy (_11, &cur.s, 24);
After:
vectp.7_19 = &accum_13(D)->sD.4831.aD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I remember seeing this similar issue before where PRE/FRE/VN decides the two
addresses are the same (they are) but since waccess does not realize other
passes will use the restricted address still and still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56046|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference between the 2 is the costing of the __printf_chk/puts:
_FORTIFY_SOURCE case:
freq:0.20 size: 3 time:2.43 __printf_chk (1, "Object code generation not
active! Forgot to call quantum_objcode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
/* (~a) | (a ^ b) --> (~a) | (~b)
(which might be done into ~(a & b) depending on if ~a is not a cmp) */
(simplify
(bit_ior:c @0 (bit_xor:c @1 @2))
(with { bool wascmp; }
(if (bitwise_inverted_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Bug ID: 111699
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in
fold_build3_loc/fold_ternary_loc/generic_simplify_VEC_
COND_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111700
Bug ID: 111700
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in needs_read_p (input.cc:598) with
-fdiagnostics-format=sarif-file or
-fdiagnostics-format=sarif-stderr on pre-processed
inpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #3)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
And you can tell the compiler some fact about the semantics of the Windoge API
functions if you really need -Werror=nonnull (though I cannot see any reason
you must use -Werror here):
int GetSystemDirectory16(c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #6 from Zeb Figura ---
It is my impression that gcc is interested in avoiding false positives for its
warnings. This isn't to say that there aren't some number of false positives in
existence, but it is my impression that gcc is inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #12)
> Hi Richi,
>
> > That said, "failure" to identify the common (vector) load is known
> > and I do have experimental patches trying to address that but did
> > n
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
