https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
Another potential buggy place is
240 vexit_reduc_67 = mask_patt_43.28_62 & mask_patt_43.28_63;
241 if (vexit_reduc_67 == { -1, -1, -1, -1 })
242goto ; [94.50%]
243 else
is expanded to
319(insn 69
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113590
Bug ID: 113590
Summary: The vectorizer introduces signed overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70730
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80036
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113591
Bug ID: 113591
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-ice15.C
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
OK. Confirm on X86 GCC failed to vectorize it, wheras Clang X86 can vectorize
it.
https://godbolt.org/z/EaTjGbPGW
X86 Clang and RISC-V Clang IR are same:
%12 = tail call <8 x double> @llvm.masked.gather.v8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583
--- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
Both ICC and Clang X86 can vectorize SPEC 2017 lbm:
https://godbolt.org/z/MjbTbYf1G
But I am not sure X86 ICC is better or X86 Clang is better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100707
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b433a6f5a0617dcbb28f2462b31198f86aadecaa
commit r14-8407-gb433a6f5a0617dcbb28f2462b31198f86aadecaa
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113405
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ff54cc0be8dfa9d9bd5922ec65e86c9eb644711
commit r14-8408-g6ff54cc0be8dfa9d9bd5922ec65e86c9eb644711
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113592
Bug ID: 113592
Summary: missed partial sum optimization in vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113593
Bug ID: 113593
Summary: missed partial sum optimization in vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113594
Bug ID: 113594
Summary: Missing partial sum optimziation in the vectorizer.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113592
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
*** Bug 113593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113593
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113594
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113592
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
*** Bug 113594 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113592
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
This testcase is probably not a good example for typical partail sum which
relies on unroll loops.
double
foo (double* p, int n)
{
double sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i != n; i++)
sum += p[i] * p[i]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110934
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index 1fd957288d4..33a8d539b4d 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -8032,7 +8032,7 @@ native_encode_vector_part (const_tree expr, unsign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113570
--- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems that we don't have any bugs in current SPEC 2017 testing.
So I strongly suggest "full coverage" testing on SPEC 2017 which I mentioned
in PR: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
-marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
maybe
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index 1fd957288d4..6d321f9baef 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -8035,6 +8035,9 @@ native_encode_vector_part (const_tree exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113520
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> I think the ipa-cp summaries should be used only when types match. At least
> Martin added type streaming for all the jump functions. So we are missing
> some ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:578c7b91f418ebbef1bf169117815409e06f5197
commit r14-8413-g578c7b91f418ebbef1bf169117815409e06f5197
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
201 - 228 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
