https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
--- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina ---
Created attachment 57538
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57538&action=edit
proposed1.patch
proposed patch, this gets the gathers and scatters back. doing regression run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114107
--- Comment #12 from N Schaeffer ---
I found the "offending" option, and it seems to be indeed a cost-model problem
as Andrew Pinski said:
good code is generated by:
gcc -O2 -ftree-vectorize -march=skylake (since gcc 6.1)
gcc -O1 -ftre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441
>
> --- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina ---
> Created attachment 57538
> --> ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114082
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Can we simply comment the entire section?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114090
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24aa051af7c59f37ec45aea754b48b97d210ea6d
commit r14-9175-g24aa051af7c59f37ec45aea754b48b97d210ea6d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114084
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9d2a95be5680e04f53141c2675798b06d23f409
commit r14-9174-gf9d2a95be5680e04f53141c2675798b06d23f409
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] forwprop |[13 Regression] forwprop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61159
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a25d7d1385087e0f43574064db45f1bc7d52f400
commit r14-9176-ga25d7d1385087e0f43574064db45f1bc7d52f400
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Mon Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61159
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70582
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Assignee|hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #27)
> So I looked closer at what the failure mode was in this PR (versus the one
> you're seeing with flexiblas). As in your case, there is a mismatch in the
> numb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
Bug ID: 114109
Summary: x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114097
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb98f71bac8aace4e685e648a81dfaf365123833
commit r14-9178-gbb98f71bac8aace4e685e648a81dfaf365123833
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Feb 25 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems RISC-V Clang didn't vectorize it ?
https://godbolt.org/z/G4han6vM3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We define them as:
#ifdef __cpp_lib_atomic_lock_free_type_aliases
# ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_PLATFORM_WAIT
using atomic_signed_lock_free
= atomic>;
using atomic_unsigned_lock_free
= atomic>;
# elif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 57539
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57539&action=edit
make lock-free aliases actually check for lock freedom
Maybe we want to do this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57539|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114097
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
It is vectorized with a higher zvl, e.g. zvl512b, refer
https://godbolt.org/z/vbfjYn5Kd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #2)
> It is vectorized with a higher zvl, e.g. zvl512b, refer
> https://godbolt.org/z/vbfjYn5Kd.
OK. I see. But Clang generates many slide instruction which are expensive i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
--- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, as mentioned, vectorization of the first loop is debatable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114110
Bug ID: 114110
Summary: unhelpful message about non-movable types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
Bug ID: 114111
Summary: [avr] Expensive code instead of conditional branch.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113507
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114074
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
[local count: 1014686025]:
# a.4_18 = PHI <_4(8), 0(2)>
b = 2147480647;
_1 = ~a.4_18;
_2 = _1 * 2147480647;
a = _2;
foo ();
a.2_3 = a;
if (a.2_3 == 0)
goto ; [5.50%]
else
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114074
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
In fact SCEV does, in chrec_fold_multiply for a mixed multiplication:
return build_polynomial_chrec
(CHREC_VARIABLE (op0),
chrec_fold_multiply (type, CHREC_LEFT (op0), op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114110
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39c07c5a3bf4a865175727bf60d5758372543b87
commit r14-9179-g39c07c5a3bf4a865175727bf60d5758372543b87
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-02-26 5:54 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I assume the problem is that the ATOMIC_xxx_LOCK_FREE macros have value 1 not
> 2, so they're not unconditionally lock-free.
>
> Are any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88661078eac2440fbc2cd5b32ee31cec93f84d08
commit r13-8363-g88661078eac2440fbc2cd5b32ee31cec93f84d08
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK then I think we don't want these aliases to be defined at all (which means
we cannot be fully C++20 conformant) and the test should be xfailed or skipped.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a915f6ab52eff19eb3c890a127c6693c8ce4f65
commit r12-10178-g1a915f6ab52eff19eb3c890a127c6693c8ce4f65
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbf799a972201e82f54ee17dc3bf7a093a98077a
commit r11-11255-gbbf799a972201e82f54ee17dc3bf7a093a98077a
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-02-26 7:22 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> OK then I think we don't want these aliases to be defined at all (which means
> we cannot be fully C++20 conformant) and the test should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114112
Bug ID: 114112
Summary: Error message is translatable but inserts untranslated
substring
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113450
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'm talking with Oracle Solaris Engineering and they're amenable to
making the int8_t change from char to signed char.
To assess the possible impact, the plan is to compare the public
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114113
Bug ID: 114113
Summary: bogus -Walloc-zero warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Bug ID: 114114
Summary: Internal compiler error on function-local conditional
noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107855
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Hmm, the test contains
>
> "/* { dg-additional-options "-Ofast -mavx" { target avx_runtime } } */"
>
> So it passes on AVX capable native builds, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
Bug ID: 114115
Summary: xz-utils segfaults when built with -fprofile-generate
(bad interaction between IFUNC and binding?)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
One of the xz developers, Jia Tan, has kindly minimised it to not need
BIND_NOW. I've adapted it a bit to cleanup flags and warnings.
I can reproduce it with the following, at least:
```
#!/bin/sh
gcc-14 -O2 -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
The reproducer succeeds for me with Clang 17.0.6, but fails for me with GCC
10..14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> One of the xz developers, Jia Tan, has kindly minimised it to not need
> BIND_NOW. I've adapted it a bit to cleanup flags and warnings.
(oops, sorry, this one does need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114068
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8293df8019adfffae3384cb6fb9cb6f496fe8608
commit r14-9181-g8293df8019adfffae3384cb6fb9cb6f496fe8608
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114099
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb68e2cac1283f731a3a979cb714621afb1ddfcc
commit r14-9182-gfb68e2cac1283f731a3a979cb714621afb1ddfcc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114104
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is the use of TLS inside an ifunc resolver which seems like causing issues
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The obvious workaround is to mark the ifunc_resolver with
no_profile_instrument_function attribute since is only ever called once and
really does not need to be PGO'ed anyways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we can automatically consider that when handling the ifunc attribute?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
Bug ID: 114116
Summary: [14 Regression] Broken backtraces in bootstrapped
x86_64 gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114086
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Unfortunately doing the ((682 >> x) & 1) to x & 1 optimization in match.pd
> isn't possible, we can only use global ranges there and we need path
> specific ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66874
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Pretty sure my issue is indeed PR114116.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe introduce TYPE_NO_CALLEE_SAVED_REGISTERS_EXCEPT_BP or something similar?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #20 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Petr Skocik from comment #19)
> IMO(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
>
> > In practice most _Noreturn functions are abort, exit, ..., i.e. they are
> > only executed one time so optimizin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114042
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77576915cfd26e603aba5295dfdac54a5545f5f2
commit r14-9184-g77576915cfd26e603aba5295dfdac54a5545f5f2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Bug ID: 114117
Summary: -Wno-foo handling
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pto at linuxbog dot dk
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 57544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57544&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57545&action=edit
gcc14-pr114116.patch
This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the small testcase, back to the
expected back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 57545 [details]
> gcc14-pr114116.patch
>
> This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the small testcase, back to the
> expected backtrace there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 57545 [details]
> > gcc14-pr114116.patch
> >
> > This seems to fix it, so far tested just on the sm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. Not to mention, one can call backtrace even if -g0; you just don't get
nice names for the addresses. Without the patch you get crashes in the
unwinder when doing backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113257
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57546&action=edit
gcc 14 test results
$ gcc-13 --version
gcc-13 (Gentoo 13.2.1_p20240210 p13) 13.2.1 20240210
Copyright (C) 2023 Fre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114111
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe this is something that could be done during isel to undo what was done in
phiopt ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|Internal compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1931c40364bb9fb0a7c4b650917e3ac0e88bf6f4
commit r14-9185-g1931c40364bb9fb0a7c4b650917e3ac0e88bf6f4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114118
Bug ID: 114118
Summary: std::is_floating_point<_Float32> and
__is_floating<_Float32> are false in C++20 and older
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hjl.tools at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114012
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f71e801ad0bb1f620334aadbd7c99cc4efe6309
commit r14-9186-g2f71e801ad0bb1f620334aadbd7c99cc4efe6309
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114118
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RFE: -fanalyzer should |RFE: -fanalyzer should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114119
Bug ID: 114119
Summary: add reduction promotion from unsigned char to unsigned
not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114120
Bug ID: 114120
Summary: add reduction with promotion and then truncation
poorly vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opti
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
