https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
I'll be attaching a proposed(/rfc) patch momentarily.
I'm able to add logic in cfgexpand.c expand_asm_stmt() to catch the use of a FP
register when our target is SOFT_FLOAT ; but the result is an ICE while t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #5 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 48486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48486&action=edit
Patch that seemed promising but is not sufficient.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
Couldn't duplicate on P8/BE. I still have a couple builds going to see if I
can duplicate elsewhere.
I see "--with-cpu=default32 " in the config string. Is this an older hardware
platform?
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #10 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> So what is the instruction / builtin / anything where it fails?
I've managed to recreate the altivec_init_builtins ICE issue on a yellowdog
box. (4-core 97
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #13 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 48871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48871&action=edit
proposed patch
Attached patch appears sufficient to resolve the issue on the 970 based box I
have access to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #14 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #13)
> Created attachment 48871 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Attached patch appears sufficient to resolve the issue on the 970 based box
> I have access to.
Mikael,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #16 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #15)
> (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #13)
> > > Created attachment 48871 [details]
> > > proposed patch
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #19 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|RESOLVED
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
This is a duplicate of PR96139.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 96139 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43171
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43171&action=edit
simplified t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> Does this work on GCC 7 (obviously without -mno-fold-gimple)? If so, please
> mark as [8 regression] in title.
looks like No, this also fails on the gcc 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
I'm having a moment of doubt on the validity of the testcases involved here.
vector long long a = vec_div(long long b, long long c);
Any chance that is invalid for -m32 ? I don't see a whole lot of vec_div
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83707
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83707
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 43360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43360&action=edit
.expand dump from a build with -O1.
the .expand dump from a build with -O1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
||2018-08-14
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |willschm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 44542
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44542&action=edit
preliminary patch to resolve the problem
preliminary/rfc patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Thanks for the bug report.
The patch (attached) has also been posted to gcc-patches for review.
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
This should have cleared up once the gimple-folding support for unaligned loads
and stores went in, and the instruction counts settled on the expected values.
commit c16f12a2dc14256226e85a9a9f82b54eb1de2187
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87021
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
These should clear up once the gimple-folding for vec_splat() code goes in.
If that patch is held up much longer (relatively), i will probably disable the
scan-assembler counts for those tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Thu Sep 6 19:47:06 2018
New Revision: 264150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-09-06 Will Schmidt
PR target/86731
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Mon Sep 24 15:47:22 2018
New Revision: 264538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264538&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite]
2018-09-24 Will Schmidt
PR testsuite/86952
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
This was fixed via r264538
r264538 | willschm | 2018-09-24 10:47:22 -0500 (Mon, 24 Sep 2018) | 8 lines
[testsuite]
2018-09-24 Will Schmidt
PR testsuite/86952
* gcc.target/powerpc/p8-vec-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84220
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Wed Feb 14 15:32:02 2018
New Revision: 257662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-02-14 Will Schmidt
PR target/84220
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84388
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Thu Feb 15 14:50:15 2018
New Revision: 257692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite]
2018-02-15 Will Schmidt
PR target/84388
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84220
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84388
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84371
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #1)
> In addition to trunk this also fails with gcc 7
Yup.
There was/is an ice in one of the builtins-3.* tests that should be better now
, per https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84371
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
The scope of the problem here seems to have changed in the last week.
Now seeing a number of
" error: builtin function '__builtin_altivec_neg_v2df' requires the
'-mpower8-vector' option "
will investigate,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #4)
> Tried to re-create locally, I've gotten two ICE's using the provided
> testcode snippet, neither look quite like the originally reported issue.
> (thus I don't kno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84371
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Mon Mar 5 17:11:16 2018
New Revision: 258257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-05 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk.
2018-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84371
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
--- Comment #8 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #6)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #4)
> > > Tried to re-create locally, I've gotten two ICE's using the provid
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43587&action=edit
testcase
This was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 43602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43602&action=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> What configure flags for that specially configured gcc?
> Can you in a debugger pt whatever tree_operand_hash::hash is called on?
> I certainly can't reproduce thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #5 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #3)
> > $ /home/willschm/gcc/trunk.svn/configure --with-cpu=power7
> > --with-long-double-128 --prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44796&action=edit
patch to add powerpc t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 44797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44797&action=edit
simpler testcase variation
Simplified the testcase a bit.
comment/uncomment the noinline attribute on the get_au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #5 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> Is this fixed now?
This should be fixed on trunk with Revision: 264150
Has not yet been backported to 8.
Let me find and do a follow-up comment on the thre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Tue Oct 9 20:55:25 2018
New Revision: 264994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-10-09 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk.
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #16 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #13)
> CCing Will Schmidt for the general gimple-folding issue of built-in calls
> with missing LHSes.
revision 250185 has been committed to handle the gimple-folding i
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40756&action=edit
sample test
Noticed that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79941
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Fri Mar 10 16:18:44 2017
New Revision: 246040
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2017-03-10 Will Schmidt
PR target/79941
* config/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82848
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> Note that GCC 7.1 did:
>
> $ powerpc64-suse-linux-gcc-7
> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr37168.c -c
> /home/marxin/Programming/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Fri Oct 28 13:28:46 2016
New Revision: 241647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2016-10-26 Will Schmidt
PR middle-end/72747
* gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Wed Nov 2 14:12:23 2016
New Revision: 241792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-02 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Wed Nov 2 14:13:07 2016
New Revision: 241793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-02 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #11 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > > Have you tried a new valgrind?
> > >
> > > Either this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #14 from Will Schmidt ---
Using gdb/vgdb to view the valgrind shadow register values, it looks like
the uninitialized values are being loaded in via the
_restgpr0_25 call being made at the end of isVariable().
Dump of assembler cod
,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Static analyser cppcheck says:
>
> 1.
>
> gcc/confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100693
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #11 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> It turns out not to be undocumented -- but I'd like to remove it anyway.
> Any objections?
Realistically I believe I was the only user of that feature, was to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Noted on powerpc using recent GCC.
gcc version 12.0.0 20210812 (experimental) (GCC)
foofoo9.c:
register a __asm__("r20");
b() { a = a % 9 ;
73 matches
Mail list logo
