https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #9 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
Bug ID: 113227
Summary: Maybe optimization (a>0) && (b>0) with or&<0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #7 from Patrick O'Neill ---
527 still fails on zvl128. I'll let the rest of spec run overnight and let you
know the status of 549 once it finishes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
--- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su ---
Sorry for noise. This proposal is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Bug ID: 113228
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: recalculate_side_effects, at
gimplify.cc:3347
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Testcase:
int a;
long b;
signed c;
short d;
short i;
void f() {
int k[3];
int *l = &a;
d = 0;
for (; c; c--) {
i = 0;
for (; i <= 9; i++) {
b = 1;
for (; b <= 4; b++)
k[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(gdb) p debug_tree(*expr_p)
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set 2 canonical-type
0x7741c5e8 precision:32 min max
pointer_to_this >
visited var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #1)
> int k[3];
It would better if we didn't depend on an uninitialized variable (I have a
patch against reassoc to not handle uninitialized/undef names) and init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
#6 0x00d4594f in force_gimple_operand_gsi (gsi=0x7fffd3c0,
expr=0x779fe6e0, simple_p=true, var=0x0, before=true, m=GSI_SAME_STMT) at
../../gcc/gimplify-me.cc:141
141 return force_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113206
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems that we still didn't locate the real problem of failed SPEC you ran.
Do you have any other ideas to locale the real problem ?
Li Pan didn't locate the problem neither.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
What match is doing is correct, what reassoc is doing looks to be ok, but the
gimplifier just falls over on `SSA_NAME != 0`.
This fixes the ICE but I don't understand how the gimplifier was handling
SSA_NAM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104221
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathanieloshead at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems like a reduced testcase, where is the original testcase from? Or is
it an automated code generator?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113227
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes `(a > 0) & (b > 0)` is not the same as `(a|b) > 0`. I think we already
catch all of the related `(a CMP 0) &/| (b CMP 0)`; see PR 95731 for those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101444
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106682
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
