https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
Bug ID: 117968
Summary: running "cpp" with malformed arguments can cause input
file deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
--- Comment #4 from Rémi MARSAL ---
Thanks for pointing out the man page Jakub. This makes sense now.
Apologies about this report.
However, I don't understand why cpp doesn't raise an error because the input
file doesn't exist.
I recursively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100252
Bug ID: 100252
Summary: Internal compiler error during template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100252
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
A more minimal case: https://godbolt.org/z/jxP9e35bz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97946
Bug ID: 97946
Summary: passing templated function without template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100252
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Even more minimal case: https://godbolt.org/z/M3Tv9oqcn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100482
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
This appears to be valid for function return types as well but the compiler
does error when decltype is used in a function parameter
namespace std{}
int A(int a) { // fine
decltype(std) b = a;
return b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
Jonathon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathon at m2x dot dev
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #18 from Jonathon ---
Thanks for clearing that up. You gave the impression that you reinstalled
Manjaro in a VM to ensure it wasn't a local change, and it wasn't otherwise
clear what Manjaro had to do with anything (i.e. why would Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100507
Bug ID: 100507
Summary: ICE on invalid: tree check expects tree that contains
'decl common'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100692
Bug ID: 100692
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in fld_incomplete_type_of, at
tree.c:5452
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100692
--- Comment #1 from Luke Street ---
Preprocessed source was too large to attach, so here's a GitHub gist:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/encounter/03ecf9a70a225970f8485d3e89dff432/raw/bac21e49cb0f6be88cb7cf5fa80664a0f62b7748/ice_fld_incompl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100829
Bug ID: 100829
Summary: ICE with type that can't be determined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Jeremy R. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||llvm at rifkin dot dev
--- Comment #6 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101213
Bug ID: 101213
Summary: Improve support for decltype(std)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101213
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is just how GCC recovers from a bad parse, so that it can attempt to
> continue and give diagnostics for the rest of the code. An invalid type in
> certain de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101215
Bug ID: 101215
Summary: Using non-standard custom linker with -fuse-ld
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93645
--- Comment #9 from Artur Sinila ---
What's a blocker for this bug? What should be improved in the patch in order
for it to be accepted?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621
Bug ID: 108621
Summary: [12 regression]: bind(c) pointer array spurious
maybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #5 from John Drouhard ---
Has there been any progress toward resolution for this? We've been trying to
use coroutines in our project but we require LTO for performance reasons, so
this is holding us back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109044
Bug ID: 109044
Summary: Missed fold for (n - 1) / 2 when n is odd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
Bug ID: 109096
Summary: __has_unique_object_representations does not account
for unnamed bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Müller ---
Sorry, wrong godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/f1fGExsr7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109111
--- Comment #1 from John Drouhard ---
https://godbolt.org/z/csozden6e
example of gcc not diagnosing mismatched requires clauses (and clang correctly
doing so).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
Bug ID: 104702
Summary: [12 Regression] False positive -Wunused-value warning
with -fno-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
Bug ID: 105130
Summary: gcc does not warn about unused return value of last
expression of statement expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Created attachment 52740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52740&action=edit
Proposed patch #2
Actually, my proposed patch was definitely incorrect. It didn't allow me to
circumvent the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #8 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created attachment 53332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53332&action=edit
Full reload output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
The redundant Insn 2660 is reload inserted for Insn 1717
1717: r1871:DI=frame:DI+r2813:DI
Inserting insn reload before:
2660: r2814:DI=0x1000
2661: r2813:DI=r2814:DI-0x7e8
REG_EQUAL 0x818
Insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #10 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created a small test case which emulates generation of 2 split consts.
void foo(void)
{
bar(2072, 2096);
}
253r.expand has 4 instructions: Pair of LI 4096 + ADDI for each const.
260r.fwprop1 prune
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106439
Bug ID: 106439
Summary: RISC-V suboptimal codegen for large constants
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106727
Bug ID: 106727
Summary: Missed fold / canonicalization for checking if a
number is a power of 2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Bug ID: 107178
Summary: Diagnosis for colon vs semi-colon in a member function
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
The easy solution is to mention both the bitfield and "hey maybe you meant to
use a ;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
Bug ID: 103819
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in redirect_callee, at
cgraph.c:1389 with __attribute__((flatten)) and -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103858
Bug ID: 103858
Summary: [12 Regression] strlen() implementation is optimized
into a call to strlen() at -O2, causing infinite
recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Here's an even smaller test case (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/ee9GceMx3):
===
template struct Optional {
~Optional() {
if (m_has_value)
value();
}
T value();
bool m_has_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Bug ID: 104284
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression
'' of kind implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Bug ID: 104391
Summary: Gfortran 9 regression with bind(C) and allocatable or
pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Bug ID: 103072
Summary: Folding common switch code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So maybe the switchconv pass could be
> improved not to do just the linear etc. expression handling, but also
> consider code sequences that are the same except for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
Bug ID: 103559
Summary: Can't optimize away < 0 check on sqrt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
Bug ID: 103738
Summary: No warning when setting deprecated fields using
designated initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
Niklas Haas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52009|no_warning.c|warning.c
filename|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103738
--- Comment #2 from Niklas Haas ---
Created attachment 52010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52010&action=edit
No deprecation warning produced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103765
Bug ID: 103765
Summary: Missed arithmetic simplification for multiplication +
division
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
Bug ID: 102232
Summary: Missed arithmetic fold
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Correction on first line: *GCC optimizes bar into tgt here but not foo.
Pardon my sloppy copy-paste from my bug report over on LLVM's bugzilla!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107363
Bug ID: 107363
Summary: Wrong caret location for "redundant move in return
statement"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Bug ID: 105666
Summary: RISC-V 507.cactuBSSN_r build has costly FMV
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineet.gupta at linux dot dev
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595428.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101674
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 105666, which changed state.
Bug 105666 Summary: RISC-V 507.cactuBSSN_r build has costly FMV instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105666
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
Bug ID: 105734
Summary: Regression: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1)
> > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
>
> The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy R. ---
One workaround in the general case is
decltype(ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr)) =
libassert_decomposer = ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} <<
expr);
But this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #14 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick patch :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105811
Bug ID: 105811
Summary: Diagnostics for template class member call with
missing template parameters can be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
Bug ID: 106265
Summary: RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu code bloat due to address
generation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Analyzed a section of -dP dump where reg a2 is setup with exact same value
while being live.
rhs-cred.cc:42: (*(double *)((char *)&ao)[k] + *(double *)((char *)0)[12] +
#(insn 2662 1711 76 (set (reg:DI 12 a2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
I've experimented with riscv_rtx_costs() setting cost of const to 1 as
discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98596. This does
reduce the number of li 4096 instances to 10 (from 14), but th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
Digging into RTL dumps, the li instructions are introduced by 300r reload.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
Going back to first dump (upstream 6abe341558a w/o riscv_rtx_costs() adj): the
3rd instruction addi is marking a2 REG_DEAD at 315 cprop.hardreg
--->8 314r.rnreg
(insn 2663 2662 1714 3 (set (reg:DI 13 a3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106265
--- Comment #7 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So why do we even emit unsupported 'li 4096' and leave it to the linker to
> "optimize(?)"?
li 4096 is really a pseudo-op - LUI is used to build 32-bit constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Bug ID: 101300
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
Bug ID: 101701
Summary: GCC optimization and code generation for if-else
chains vs ternary chains vs a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy R. ---
I see with gcc x86_64 it does get the fold correct if another term (val == 5)
is added to the if-else chain: https://godbolt.org/z/TE15Wf1bo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101754
Bug ID: 101754
Summary: Missed fold for a/b*b
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Bug ID: 101790
Summary: ICE on invalid regression in trunk: tree check:
expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
Bug ID: 101821
Summary: Redundant xor eax eax
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
This happens with __builtin_popcount as well, not just std::popcount. This
appears to have started in GCC 4.9.2. https://godbolt.org/z/4dGWvT5zr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
Jeremy R. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant xor eax eax |Redundant xor eax eax
|re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
Bug ID: 101822
Summary: Codegen bug for popcount
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy R. ---
Ah thank you @Andrew Pinski @Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy R. ---
Does the false dependency still apply to modern CPUs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Never mind, 101821 was invalid and the initial xor eax eax is by design (still
wondering whether this applies to new CPUs though). There is still a
discrepancy between this code and the __builtin_popcount code t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the resources and for your insight, it's much appreciated.
Is there interest in updating the intentional false-dependency logic to not
fire for architectures newer than cannonlake?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
Interestingly it's optimized correctly on -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114160
Bug ID: 114160
Summary: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_offset RISCV
thead-c906
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
Bug ID: 110804
Summary: [13 regression] eliminate_stmt ICE on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #1 from psykose ---
forgot to mention, but this is on alpine linux.
i can't seem to reproduce this with g++13 '13.1.0' on debian sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #3 from psykose ---
oh wow, completely identical! i didn't find that somehow, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
psykose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alice at ayaya dot dev
--- Comment #10 from p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111242
Bug ID: 111242
Summary: Out of bounds pointer arithmetic not caught in
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
John Drouhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at drouhard dot dev
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #18 from psykose ---
> Could you please run a regression to identify which commit along GCC-13
> branch introduce the change at least to get the ball rolling ?
note that it might not actually be a regression; it's possible the cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
Bug ID: 111729
Summary: Design considerations for operator<<(basic_ostream&,
const charT*)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick response
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy R. ---
Silently ruining the behavior of the rest of a program and leaving the
programmer to pull their hair out over what on earth is happening seems very
un-ideal behavior.
This is a very easy mistake to make and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #21 from Jeremy R. ---
Another option might be just do nothing and don't set the badbit, just pretend
it's an empty string. This shouldn't break existing programs and would at least
be something a programmer could more easily track do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116274
Bug ID: 116274
Summary: x86: poor code generation with 16 byte function
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116534
Bug ID: 116534
Summary: [14 regression] internal compiler error with
comparison of pointers calculated with array offset
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
Andrew Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.jones at linux dot dev
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
Bug ID: 109279
Summary: [13 Regression] RISC-V: complex constants synthesized
vs. fetching from constant pool
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
We start off with following:
(insn 18 17 19 2 (set (reg:DI 154)
(mem/u/c:DI (reg/f:DI 155) [0 S8 A64])) "...":9:8 179 {*movdi_64bit}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 155)
(expr_list:REG_EQU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> If this was about -Os, then I would say yes this is a big code bloat but
> this is about -O2.
But this is not so much about code bloat, we see 3.5% additional dy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109279
--- Comment #10 from Vineet Gupta ---
I tried removing the in_splitter check (in 2 places), but no change in
results.
@@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ riscv_force_temporary (rtx dest, rtx value, bool
in_splitter)
- if (can_create_pseudo_p () && !in_spl
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
