https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95701
Carlos Galvez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116506
Bug ID: 116506
Summary: [15 Regression] Destructors of temporary awaitables
are executed too early
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
It seems sparc doesn't support comparisons in vectorization?
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-switch-ifcvt-1.c:13:7:
missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: _13 = _1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> It seems sparc doesn't support comparisons in vectorization?
I think you want to check vect_condition for this. (like bb-slp-69.c )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109867
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Arsen Arsenovic :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff0cba200af72f2514ebc987a99027f314d4cc99
commit r15-3234-gff0cba200af72f2514ebc987a99027f314d4cc99
Author: Arsen ArsenoviÄ
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note after r15-2946-gfcc3af99498804, for:
```
int fc(unsigned char a)
{
return __builtin_popcountg(a) == 1;
}
```
Without CSSC, GCC produces:
```
and w0, w0, 255
fmovd31, x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #7 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
Thanks. Updated patch. This one seems obvious so I'll commit soon.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-switch-ifcvt-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-switch-ifcvt-1.c
index f5352ef8ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Note after r15-2946-gfcc3af99498804, for:
> ```
> int fc(unsigned char a)
> {
> return __builtin_popcountg(a) == 1;
> }
> ```
>
> Without CSSC, GCC produces:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to andi from comment #7)
> Thanks. Updated patch. This one seems obvious so I'll commit soon.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-switch-ifcvt-1.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #2 from Artyom Kolpakov ---
I apologize very much. Not having figured out who the actual developer of clang
is, I took third persons opinions as the organization's opinion and used that
to create the further discussion. As it was poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to andi from comment #7)
>> Thanks. Updated patch. This one seems obvious so I'll commit soon.
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116507
Bug ID: 116507
Summary: [15 Regression] movhi_aarch64 should use fmov if FP16
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
Bug ID: 116508
Summary: [15 Regression] `popcount(short) == 1` or char no
longer expands to using `(arg ^ (arg - 1)) > arg - 1`
trick after r15-2946-gfcc3af99498804
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113939
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Andreas, do you think the m68k port is ready to try bootstrapping with LRA
enabled by default? It'd be relatively simple to flip it in my tester.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #205 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #204)
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's because I disabled late combine as one of the
> measures trying to mitigate the segfault.
>
> I am testi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andi Kleen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffb00a0da44be946bcac45dd702e18555f564b2e
commit r15-3236-gffb00a0da44be946bcac45dd702e18555f564b2e
Author: Andi Kleen
Date: Tue Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116484
J Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayhappy at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116484
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to J Lee from comment #4)
> Is this error also related to the same 'const' issue?
No that is unrelated to this attribute issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116484
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to J Lee from comment #4)
> > Is this error also related to the same 'const' issue?
>
> No that is unrelated to this attribute issue.
Well the origin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116484
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to J Lee from comment #4)
> > > Is this error also related to the same 'const' issue?
> >
> > No that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.mozilla.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #14 from Vineet Gupta ---
Interim update:
Per discussions [1] [2] with Richard Sandiford, some of the behavior is
fundamental to the "model" heuristics of -fsched-pressure, specially for
in-order cores which benefit from little more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #16 from Vineet Gupta ---
After ECC hack, the issue persists.
Toggles (for cc1plus): -O2 -march=rv64gc_zfa -mabi=lp64d
%sfp is the spill because
-fno-schedule-insns | -fschedule-insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116271
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joern Rennecke :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:beb94f5979953969593a2387561cdbc8fedfaeb1
commit r15-3240-gbeb94f5979953969593a2387561cdbc8fedfaeb1
Author: Joern Rennecke
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
--- Comment #13 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 8/27/24 12:25, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
>
> --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargls from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116473
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116410
--- Comment #7 from Xionghu Luo (luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org) ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> Created attachment 59016 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this.
Thanks, it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116498
--- Comment #3 from Alan Fisher ---
> It seems odd that neither Pmode nor ptr_mode is in the set of integer modes
> though.
This does seem odd... One would think PSI should sit between HI and SI as here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116484
--- Comment #8 from J Lee ---
I agree with you, Andrew.
Now, GCC can't be used to build XSIMD at least RISC-V.
I didn't expect getting such quick and helpful comments like this.
Thanks sergesanspaille and Andrew ! :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116507
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, the whole `*mov_aarch64` set of patterns are a mess and looks like
they need some cleanup too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
part of the problem here is the use of OPTAB_DIRECT when it should use
OPTAB_WIDEN instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> part of the problem here is the use of OPTAB_DIRECT when it should use
> OPTAB_WIDEN instead.
That fixes short but for char looks like there is still some cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > part of the problem here is the use of OPTAB_DIRECT when it should use
> > OPTAB_WIDEN instead.
>
> That fixes s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116509
Bug ID: 116509
Summary: 128bit integer compares can be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116509
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59018&action=edit
What LLVM produces
This is what LLVM produces. GCC should be able to do similarly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116508
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107533
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
yes the by-value parameters are a separate issue that I hope recent patches on
the list (I remember something flying past) should help correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107533
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #2)
> yes the by-value parameters are a separate issue that I hope recent patches
> on the list (I remember something flying past) should help correct.
The pat
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
