https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112434
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh wait is documented as a "generic" one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112435
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112436
Bug ID: 112436
Summary: SFINAE-unfriendly error on throwing pointer to
incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112437
Bug ID: 112437
Summary: ICE with throw inside concept sometimes and -std=c++20
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112437
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe related to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00226.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112437
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The backtrace:
```
t55.cc:4:37: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
4 | concept Throwable = requires(T x) { throw x; };
| ^~~
0x133b01f crash_signal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:078087d1605060da4f993af83b1bfa351b278d38
commit r14-5238-g078087d1605060da4f993af83b1bfa351b278d38
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
--- Comment #8 from Haochen Jiang ---
Should be fixed on trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112435
--- Comment #12 from Haochen Jiang ---
Seems like we should prevent the optimization in that commit to register
x/ymm16+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9148120048f4508156acfcd19a334f4dcbb96f0
commit r14-5239-gf9148120048f4508156acfcd19a334f4dcbb96f0
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Wed No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
It should be fixed on the trunk.
Plz verify it and close the issue.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
Bug ID: 112438
Summary: RISC-V: Failed to AVL propagation through induction
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #2 from Kito Cheng ---
oh, but the root cause might be little bit deeper, not just the problem of
propagation or not propagation the AVL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112406
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112406
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
You mean current codegen is bug ?
No, I don't think there is a bug in current codegen.
It's induction variable.
ble a0,zero,.L5
...
vsetvli a3,zero,e32,m1,ta,ma
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112432
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is there a corresponding C API? We don't have "generic" versions in
> builtins.def either (with _VAR).
>
> That said, what's the testcase here?
I found some FLOATN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112340
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
Oh. I see what you mean.
I think it may not be the valid optimization.
Since the following codes:
.L3:
vsetvli a5,a0,e32,m1,ta,ma
sllia4,a5,2
vle32.v v1,0(a1)
sub a0,a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng ---
Assume:
VLEN = 128 and n = 5, *in is {0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
so VLMAX = 4 for e32m1
It can be run with vl = 4 for first iteration, and vl = 1 vl for second
iteration
But it could be something like that: vl = 3 for f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #6 from Kito Cheng ---
The key is the splat of VLMAX instruction need move into loop body, but AVL
propagation should still able to do:
```
foo(int, int*, int*):
ble a0,zero,.L5
csrra5,vlenb
srlia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #7 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #6)
> The key is the splat of VLMAX instruction need move into loop body, but AVL
> propagation should still able to do:
>
> ```
> foo(int, int*, int*):
> ble a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112394
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca281a7b97163273de9d73da556fb3f6dcc3b61b
commit r14-5242-gca281a7b97163273de9d73da556fb3f6dcc3b61b
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Tue N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112394
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
Should be fixed.
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
