https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116135
Bug ID: 116135
Summary: __builtin_mul_overflow inefficient for _BitInt(31)
(with widening multiply)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116135
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Similarly for:
```
int f1(unsigned _BitInt(9) x, unsigned _BitInt(9) y, unsigned _BitInt(9) * res)
{
return __builtin_mul_overflow(x, y, res);
}
int f2(unsigned _BitInt(9) x, unsigned _BitInt(9) y, unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta ---
So after many months on and off on the issue, I think I understand what's going
on.
There are 3 insns involved in the issue which sched1 current generates in
following order:
insn 46(1) srliw a0,a5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106783
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at rivosinc dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106783
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #9)
> I think this is another example using -Os and -fdump-tree-modref:
> double a;
> double b(double c) { return 0 - 0.5 * c ?: a; }
>
> Godbolt: https://godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> In some of my test runs (have not yet been able to deduce any pattern), I'm
> seeing this new test case FAIL its execution test:
>
Can you try this minor ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116136
Bug ID: 116136
Summary: [15 Regression] ext-dce exposes latent subreg
simplification bug on m68k
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k|
Summary|[15 Regression] ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116103
--- Comment #10 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> (In reply to Li Pan from comment #7)
> > confirm with you all related failures are covered.
>
> Yes, the testing state is restored to what it was before, thanks!
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116043
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc1fda00d5f20e2f3e77a50b2822562b6e0040b2
commit r15-2395-gbc1fda00d5f20e2f3e77a50b2822562b6e0040b2
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116137
Bug ID: 116137
Summary: missing VRP with absu and known not to include INF
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually I am trying to understand the original reason for the extra checks
that was added in r14-992 when dealing with highpart:
The reason for testing the presence of the optab
handler is to make s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note that LLVM converts it always to __builtin_mult_overflow as far as
I can tell. Even on targets like avr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-30
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
