https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101362
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> In particular can_change_signature is one of the keys for
> ix86_function_regparm to use local calling conventions on i?86
So looking through the code on i386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi @Michael, @Martin, could you help to confirm/clarify what triggers you to be
interested in this feature, is it for some user space usage or not?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114544
Bug ID: 114544
Summary: [x86] stv should transform (subreg DI (V1TI) 8) as
(vec_select:DI (V2DI) (const_int 1))
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114544
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
20590;; Turn SImode or DImode extraction from arbitrary SSE/AVX/AVX512F
20591;; vector modes into vec_extract*.
20592(define_split
20593 [(set (match_operand:SWI48x 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
20594(sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114544
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
Also for
void
foo2 (v128_t* a, v128_t* b)
{
c = (*a & *b)+ *b;
}
(insn 9 8 10 2 (set (reg:V1TI 108 [ _3 ])
(and:V1TI (reg:V1TI 99 [ _2 ])
(mem:V1TI (reg:DI 113) [1 *a_6(D)+0 S16 A128])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545
Bug ID: 114545
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for CSE
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Probably related:
```
#include
struct A { int a: 7; };
static_assert( 1 == std::bit_cast(std::bit_cast(A{1})).a );
```
It looks valid and accepted by MSVC, but GCC prints:
error: '__builtin_bit_cast' ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114546
Bug ID: 114546
Summary: Missed optimization: ~m || n || m+2 ==> 1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114535
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 57839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57839&action=edit
"Fix" for this PR
Even though no entities of type 'vs' are being referenced in subroutine iss,
gfortran currentl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #7 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Also do you have numbers with lto enabled? Or is these without lto?
> >
> > Does LTO improve the situation for Env
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #20 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17)
> >
> > > The results of spec2006 on LA464 are:
> > > -falign-labels=4 -falign-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5bc8abef90874e81783e0fa34db133da71d1133
commit r13-8548-ga5bc8abef90874e81783e0fa34db133da71d1133
Author: Francois-Xavier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #21 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #20)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18)
> > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17)
> > >
> > > > The results of spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #1)
> Probably related:
> ```
> #include
>
> struct A { int a: 7; };
>
> static_assert( 1 == std::bit_cast(std::bit_cast(A{1})).a );
> ```
> It looks valid and ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #9 from Giuliano Belinassi ---
Hello, Kewen.
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> Hi @Michael, @Martin, could you help to confirm/clarify what triggers you to
> be interested in this feature, is it for some user space usage or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114479
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114479
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114547
Bug ID: 114547
Summary: missed-optimization: use sign flag
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
Bug ID: 114548
Summary: gm2 fails to identify variable in a const expression
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
This is true for many of the standard procedure functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missed-optimization: use|comparison than less than 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 114455, which changed state.
Bug 114455 Summary: [C++26] P2748R5 - Disallow binding a returned reference to
a temporary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114455
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114547
--- Comment #2 from gooncreeper ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am not sure this is always better ...
sets and setns are 1 uop, just like any other setcc
why wouldn't it be better?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57840
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57840&action=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed patch (which fixes all the standard procedure function
const/var parameter chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114549
Bug ID: 114549
Summary: GCC >= 10.1 selects the wrong overload of C++20
reversed operator== function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 13.1.0, 13.2.0
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114549
Chris Peterson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-01
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114549
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bd2f59af4a78cdc80039cffa51c1d9ad91081a3
commit r14-9739-g4bd2f59af4a78cdc80039cffa51c1d9ad91081a3
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114548
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114550
Bug ID: 114550
Summary: Weird error when iterating over a character container.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.1 20240401 (experimental) (GCC)
[588] %
[588] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[589] %
[589] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[590] % ./a.out
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.1 20240401 (experimental) (GCC)
[657] %
[657] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[658] %
[658] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[659] % ./a.out
Segmentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Not this might not be a bug as pragma pack(1) changes the alignment of the
fields.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is worse.
In the GCC 7 case we have:
```
sub eax, DWORD PTR a[rip]
mov edx, eax
...
neg edx
```
While in GCC 8+ we get:
```
movl%e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41188
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #13)
> > ARC support has been removed for GCC 4.7, but it looks like there's an issue
> > here potentially relevant to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 80411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114553
Bug ID: 114553
Summary: Undefined symbol in directory_iterator move assignment
operator with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114553
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just FYI. this is the uninclude example:
```
#include "filesystem"
namespace fs = std::filesystem;
int main() {
auto iter = fs::directory_iterator();
iter = fs::directory_iterator();
}
```
Because thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85000
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 100661 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-02
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114554
Bug ID: 114554
Summary: In O2-3 optimization, this code runs in an infinite
loop.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114554
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114554
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Plus I get the following warnings at -O2:
In function 'wyrand',
inlined from 'main' at :84:5:
:76:7: warning: iteration 2 invokes undefined behavior
[-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
76 | *p1 += 325
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114554
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also didn't you read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ or even what is mentioned on the
bug entry web page?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ says:
Before reporting that GCC compiles your code incorrectly, compile it with g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114554
--- Comment #4 from nmodnation n ---
I apologize for taking up your time because of my mistake. I will be
careful from next time. thank you
2024년 4월 2일 (화) 오후 3:35, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>님이 작성:
> https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
69 matches
Mail list logo
