https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116684
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116691
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116692
Bug ID: 116692
Summary: demangler crash on valid input
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #252 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #250)
> This builds fine. I will try to build Kaz's tree now as it is.
I suggest, once this is verified to work, that we start upstreaming th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116690
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116661
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/interop-1.f90
That's a known issue – there is a parsing issue that was (usually) hidden by
the not properly initialized variable.
Now it is exposed as consistent FAIL, which is muc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116323
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19831baf4904d09a74c7cf684a27b091947a610b
commit r15-3598-g19831baf4904d09a74c7cf684a27b091947a610b
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116323
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, I can understand that this may be difficult in some cases. For instance:
static int f (void) { if (complex_condition_1) return 1; }
and used with
if (complex_condition_2)
printf ("%d\n", f (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88539
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Couldn't the C front end insert a trap at the end of the function for -O0
compilations? That would at least diagnose this for unoptimized builds. That's
what G++ does now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It would be difficult in all cases. Essentially, the sanitizer would need to
change the ABI of the function to return a pair of normal return type, boolean
flag whether it fell off from the function end wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Couldn't the C front end insert a trap at the end of the function for -O0
> compilations? That would at least diagnose this for unoptimized builds.
> That's wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104690
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doh, of course, the trap would happen even when the caller doesn't try to use
the result. ENOCAFFEINE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116631
Sofian Touhami changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eba6d2aa71a9b59386e5a2453cbe924371626b0b
commit r15-3599-geba6d2aa71a9b59386e5a2453cbe924371626b0b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #253 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #252)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #250)
> > This builds fine. I will try to build Kaz's tree now as it is.
>
> I suggest, once this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116662
--- Comment #10 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> So the question in my mind, how important is this? On modern kernels &
> toolchains it's possible to query the cboz extension & its block size which
> effectively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #254 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #253)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #252)
> > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #250)
> > > This builds fine. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|Ada FE shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
Bug ID: 116693
Summary: [RISC-V] @tlsdesc generates duplicate assembler
labels
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: assemble-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #255 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #254)
> OK, thanks for the clarification. I'd suggest then to upstream everything
> that has been tested to work and is also fine to merge as-is.
Having the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #256 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #255)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #254)
>
> > OK, thanks for the clarification. I'd suggest then to upstream everything
> > that ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #257 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #256)
> >
> > Having the compiler bootstrapping is already a big step, but how about
> > building other packages? With the patched up and bootstrapping comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25ac2bb57ae400621050a7e0845994336ca83b99
commit r15-3603-g25ac2bb57ae400621050a7e0845994336ca83b99
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk; I will backport to 14 at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
Bug ID: 116694
Summary: -Ftemplate-depth = parameter does not match the actual
number of instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116631
Sofian Touhami changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96842
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|DUPLI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
--- Comment #7 from Andi Kleen ---
Tamas also gave this example in PR115866 which shows the same problem:
short a[100];
int foo(int n, int counter)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
if (a[i] == 1 || a[i] == 2 || a[i] == 7 || a[i]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116695
Bug ID: 116695
Summary: Undefined behaviour involving unsequenced side effects
on a memory location during constant evaluation should
not compile
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
--- Comment #11 from Thiago Macieira ---
May also be related to why GCC produces warnings about uninitialised memory -
Bug 100115
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 116520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116636
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4026d89d623e322920b052f7ac0d940ef267dc0f
commit r15-3610-g4026d89d623e322920b052f7ac0d940ef267dc0f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116686
--- Comment #3 from YunQiang Su ---
I cannot reproduce this problem (with Debian Sid)
1) apt install g++-riscv-linux-gnu linux-libc-dev-riscv64-cross
2) ../configure --prefix=/usr --disable-multilib --with-arch=rv64gc
--with-abi=lp64d --target=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116418
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12bdcc3d7970860b9d66ed4dea203bde8fd68d4d
commit r15-3611-g12bdcc3d7970860b9d66ed4dea203bde8fd68d4d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`-ftemplate-depth=101` is enough here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116483
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8)
> Is there any pointer how to implement this instead?
It may be sufficient to change
(define_insn "@tablejump"
[(set (pc)
(match_operand:P 0 "register_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116483
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
Bug ID: 116696
Summary: function template not considered constexpr even with
-fimplicit-constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 59104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59104&action=edit
slightly modified std::format implementation
This is the code from the compiler explorer link.
Compile with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116697
Bug ID: 116697
Summary: Bogus -Wuninitialized warning when no access to
uninitialized data is done
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Ah, that's because __write_padded isn't inline; -fimplicit-constexpr only
applies to inlines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116483
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
> It only handles switch statements, not computed gotos.
Oh, right, apologies for misunderstanding your question like that. For computed
gotos it is indeed not so easy, especially if there is more than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
--- Comment #2 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
I think something like this
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
index 9f94b5aa023..c64c881d152 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
@@ -2334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116614
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9fd43a8df0e30109794e2480e2d8d05d00763c0
commit r14-10665-gc9fd43a8df0e30109794e2480e2d8d05d00763c0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116449
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90a9c36dc3ba341cf662ba1d60c939027487fe9a
commit r14-10666-g90a9c36dc3ba341cf662ba1d60c939027487fe9a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116636
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5609246b561ab929b24eeb32965911884b58b0df
commit r14-10667-g5609246b561ab929b24eeb32965911884b58b0df
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Bug ID: 116698
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in add_cfi_args_size, at
dwarf2cfi.cc:501 with -O -finstrument-functions
-fstack-check=generic -m32 -mrtd
-ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112600
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19d751601d012bbe31512d26f968e75873a408ab
commit r15-3612-g19d751601d012bbe31512d26f968e75873a408ab
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4088319e7ce98f813988a36f98a18ee30ff7f1d8
commit r14-10668-g4088319e7ce98f813988a36f98a18ee30ff7f1d8
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116673
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fe57e4879de93b6e3c7b4c226f42d5f3a48474f
commit r15-3614-g9fe57e4879de93b6e3c7b4c226f42d5f3a48474f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #258 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #250)
> This builds fine. I will try to build Kaz's tree now as it is.
So, for Kaz's tree, I'm getting the comparison failure:
Comparing sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So when investigating "future" fallout I've seen similar differences for
> gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vec_sat_u_add-1.c for example with the
> GIMPLE diffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #259 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
I totally agree with Oleg. We are still close to the starting point.
The experiment with 58895/59000 shows that there might be some issue with the
SH sfunc when LRA is enabled. It only paper over the rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Bug ID: 116699
Summary: factor_out_conditional_operation does not ignore
PREDICT/NOP sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #260 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Random advice that some of you know, but it's also easy to forget: reorg (the
delayed-branch-slot-filling pass) is a usual suspect: there be dragons. So,
when suspecting wrong-code for DELAY_SLOTS suc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116700
Bug ID: 116700
Summary: `(A > PZ) ? ABS(A) : PZ` -> `MAX(A, PZ)` where PZ is
known to be non-negative
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
--- Comment #3 from polarlinda6 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> So GCC is counting `A<...>` and `A<...>::value` as `seperate template
> instantiation depth` which is why you need 101.
>
> Since this is outside of the standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to polarlinda6 from comment #3)
> For the special behavior that occurs with `A<...>::value`, I hope to
> eliminate this inconsistency.
GCC counts each instantiation of a template that happens. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116701
Bug ID: 116701
Summary: [15 Regression] gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90 suddenly
fails for non-fd_truncate targets
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is a better example where we have a secondary phiopt happening:
```
short f(int a, int b, int c)
{
int t1 = 4;
if (c < t1) return (c > -1 ? c : -1);
return t1;
}
short f1(int a, int b, int c)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116702
Bug ID: 116702
Summary: `MIN_EXPR , 0>` can be optimized to
`a >> (BITSIZE-1)` for signed types
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116702
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`MIN_EXPR , 1>` -> `a > 0` :
```
#define cst1 0
#define cst2 1
int f(int a, int b, int c)
{
int t = (c > cst1 ? c : cst1);
int t2 = (t < cst2) ? t : cst2;
return t2;
}
int f2(int a, int b, int c)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025
Bug 116025 depends on bug 116653, which changed state.
Bug 116653 Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/unsigned_21.f90 from
r15-3526-g113a6da9bf91c5 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #4)
> So, If I am understanding correctly, it seems that Richard has change
> vectorizer that all auto-vectorization are represented as SLP instance ?
Yes.
> So the !s
96 matches
Mail list logo
