[Bug target/113560] Strange code generated when optimizing a multiplication on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113560 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug target/113560] Strange code generated when optimizing a multiplication on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113560 --- Comment #6 from Roger Sayle --- In the .optimized dump, we have: __int128 unsigned __res; __int128 unsigned _12; ... __res_11 = in_2(D) w* 184467440738; _12 = __res_11 & 18446744073709551615; __res_7 = _12 * 100; So the first mu

[Bug other/113336] libatomic (testsuite) regressions on arm

nextmovesoftware dot com |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|libatomic (testsuite) |libatomic (testsuite) |regressions on |regressions on arm |armv6-linux-gnueabihf | --- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle --- Hi Victor, Yes, I agree

[Bug rtl-optimization/113533] [14 Regression] Code generation regression after change for pr111267

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug rtl-optimization/113533] [14 Regression] Code generation regression after change for pr111267

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533 --- Comment #14 from Roger Sayle --- My apologies for not keeping folks updated on my thinking. Following Oleg's feedback, I've decided to slim down my proposed fix to the bare minimum, and postpone the other rtx_costs improvements until GCC 15

[Bug target/113560] Strange code generated when optimizing a multiplication on x86_64

at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com --- Comment #7 from Roger Sayle --- I'm bootstrapping and regression testing a patch.

[Bug other/113336] [14 Regression] libatomic (testsuite) regressions on arm

at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Target Milestone|--- |14.0 --- Comment #7 from Roger Sayle --- A revised patch has been posted for review/approval to gcc-patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644147.html

[Bug target/113701] Issues with __int128 argument passing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113701 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/113690] [13/14 Regression] ICE: in as_a, at machmode.h:381 with -O2 -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate -fno-split-wide-types -funroll-loops

at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com --- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle --- I'm bootstrapping and regression testing a fix.

[Bug target/113720] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2812 targeting alpha-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113720 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/113759] [14 regression] ICE when building fdk-aac-2.0.3 since r14-8680

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113759 --- Comment #9 from Roger Sayle --- Many thanks Jakub. Sorry again for the inconvenience.

[Bug target/115478] [15 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/bitint-args.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115478 --- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle --- Hi Jeff, many thanks for looking into this/assigning the PR to yourself. I'd suggest that the fix is to add a define_code_iterator to aarch64.md called any_or_plus matching the definition in i386.md. (define_c

[Bug target/115397] [15 Regression] ICE 'during RTL pass: split1' on numpy-1.26.4 i686-linux '-fPIC -mavx512f' since r15-1100-gec985bc97a0157

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115397 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/115021] [14 regression] unnecessary spill for vpternlog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115021 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 regression] |[14 regression] unnecessary

[Bug tree-optimization/115489] [12/13/14/15 regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc:589 since r12-3278-g823685221de98

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |tree-optimization --- Comment #3 from Rog

[Bug rtl-optimization/115565] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] CSE: Comparison incorrectly evaluated as constant causing optimization to produce wrong code

|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle --- Doh! I hadn't noticed (twenty years ago) that -1 was used to represent an invalid quantity numb

[Bug c/109618] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in generic_simplify_CONVERT_EXPR, at generic-match.cc since r12-3278-g823685221de986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109618 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/113673] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: BB 5 cannot throw but has an EH edge with -Os -finstrument-functions -fnon-call-exceptions -ftrapv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|roger at nextmovesoftware dot com |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/115751] ICE building 521.wrf_r

|1 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle --- Doh

[Bug target/115751] ICE building 521.wrf_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751 --- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle --- Created attachment 58567 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58567&action=edit proposed patch Here's my proposed patch.

[Bug target/115756] default tuning for x86_64 produces shifts for `*240`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug target/115749] Non optimal assembly for integer modulo by a constant on x86-64 CPUs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749 --- Comment #12 from Roger Sayle --- I owe Kim an apology. It does appear that modern x86_64 processors perform (many) multiplications faster than the latencies given in the Intel/AMD/Agner Fog documentation.

[Bug target/115751] [15 Regression] ICE building 521.wrf_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||15.0 Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/114661] Bit operations not optimized to multiplication

|RESOLVED CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work||15.0 --- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle --- This should now be fixed/implemented on

[Bug rtl-optimization/117012] [15 Regression] incorrect RTL simplification around vector AND and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117012 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug middle-end/118608] [14/15 regression][mips64] Lack of sign extension with -Os/-O1 after r14-6915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118608 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug target/115024] [14/15 regression] 128 bit division performance regression, x86, between gcc-14 and gcc-13 using target clones on skylake platform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115024 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/120296] Missed VRP with __builtin_popcount() when bitshift with __builtin_{ctzg, clzg}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120296 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

<    1   2   3   4   5