https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110388
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92220
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Unfortunately the value range info is not available in the frontend :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92220
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> Unfortunately the value range info is not available in the frontend :(.
Here "value range info" means the info from the VRP pass. For this case we can
specially check M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110394
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110401
Bug ID: 110401
Summary: Unhelpful "goto is not a constant expression" in
ill-formed constexpr function template
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Any clue about how to fix this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
attachment 54666 from PR109093 seems able to fix this. Could we make it into
trunk and the release branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> Created attachment 55409 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am stilling trying to find a small testcase.
The patch triggers an ICE building Spidermonkey 115b9 (it segfaults wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #18 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 55409 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > I am stilling trying to find a small testcase.
>
> The patch trigge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110453
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #20 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> > > Created attachment 55409 [details]
> > > A patch
> > >
> > > I am stilling try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #21 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 55421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55421&action=edit
test case broken by draft patch (at -O2 -mavx2 -mtune=haswell)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> Do you have a testcase?
Attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #24 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> Created attachment 55424 [details]
> An updated patch
Unfortunately Spidermonkey 115 still crashes even with the patch (and -O3
-march=tigerlike -mtune=tigerlake -fno-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #25 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #24)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 55424 [details]
> > An updated patch
>
> Unfortunately Spidermonkey 115 still crashes even with the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110457
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110484
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110282
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to CTC from comment #6)
> Another related and smaller reproducer:
>
> # cat tmp.i
> main() {
> int *a = 0;
> int b = *a;
> }
No, this is an undefined behavior and the compiler is allowed to gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110294
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to CTC from comment #3)
> Another related and smaller reproducer:
>
> # cat tmp.i
> a;
> *const b;
> main() { a != *b; }
This is an undefined behavior and the compiler is allowed to generate code to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Bug ID: 110557
Summary: Wrong code for x86_64-linux-gnu with -O3 -mavx2:
vectorized loop mishandles signed bit-fields
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It looks like if !UNSIGNED_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (bf_ref)), we need to generate
something like:
masked = (the signed variant of the wider type in {type_out, type_container})
container << (bitpos + bitsize);
result =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
index de20e9d59cb..01df568ee61 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
@@ -2566,7 +2566,7 @@ vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> Hi Xi,
>
> Feel free to test your patch and submit it to the list for review. I had a
> look over and it looks correct to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this but it seems like the modula2 build also suffers from
> the same issue, see PR110284.
>
> David, what exactly are you trying to build? Can you give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> intenral-fn.h is generated at gcc build-time.
I guess you mean insn-opinit.h, not internal-fn.h. internal-fn.h is in the GCC
Git repo.
> I'm not sure we want to
> 'inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Bug ID: 110617
Summary: RFE: Add a diagnostic-only variant of nonnull
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
[1]:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Bugs_in_the_user_program
[2]: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-July/149893.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 104843, which changed state.
Bug 104843 Summary: signed overflow in compute_const_anchors, at cse.cc:1180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> Fixed for 14 and 13.2.
There is a test suite issue in the committed patch, fixed at r14-2427 and
r13-7555.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would make
> more sense than adding another attribute kind.
Then maybe we'd just add a -D_GLIBC_NONNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > > I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #11)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> > But Zack's reason against using __nonnull is __nonnull may cause unwanted
> > optimizations to *the user code*.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107013
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109670
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Clearly related to PR109753, but I'm not sure if it's OK to just mark it as a
dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.gnu.org at aryanc403 dot
com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110709
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
GCC 10 branch has been closed so this is unlikely to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110709
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to wangwen from comment #6)
> would anyone guide me any place to ask such question?
You are building the .o files with -fpie, but have you linked the executable
with -pie? Note that -fpie and -pie ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Should we change invoke.texi?
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index e099cd0b568..dd4f74fbd78 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ Necessary t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110738
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112970
Bug ID: 112970
Summary: LoongArch: Suboptimal code when the address and the
value of an array element are both used
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112970
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
With -mexplicit-relocs=auto the generated code is sub-optimal as well:
pcalau12i $r12,%pc_hi20(.LANCHOR0)
addi.d $r12,$r12,%pc_lo12(.LANCHOR0)
ld.wu $r5,$r12,4
addi.d $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112970
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> With -mexplicit-relocs=auto the generated code is sub-optimal as well:
I mean "always", not "auto".
> pcalau12i $r12,%pc_hi20(.LANCHOR0)
> addi.d $r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112985
Bug ID: 112985
Summary: LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT unconditionally execute
comparison even if it's very expensive
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112978
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112998
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112986
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
*** Bug 112998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112329
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112986
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
*** Bug 112329 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112112
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112986
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
*** Bug 112112 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113034
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113034
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(define_code_iterator vfcond [unordered ordered eq ne le lt uneq unle unlt])
(define_code_attr fcc
[(unordered "cun")
(ordered "cor")
(eq"ceq")
(ne"cne")
(uneq "cueq")
(u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113034
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It looks like we are missing a force_reg () somewhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(define_expand "vec_init"
[(match_operand:LSX 0 "register_operand")
(match_operand:LSX 1 "")]
"ISA_HAS_LSX"
{
loongarch_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
DONE;
})
We need to add a predi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Strange... Most backends do not have predicate for op2 of vec_init but how do
they evade this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #6 from Xi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112936
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113034
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
index 256fa7d048d..65a2915329e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
@@ -10770,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> (In reply to juki from comment #2)
> > Unfortunately alignment of the cast type was not causing this issue.
> >
> > I changed all calls that were defined in GCC headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113025
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Works for me:
#include
#include
#define LOAD_SI128(ptr) \
( ((uintptr_t)(ptr) & 15) == 0 ) ? _mm_load_si128((__m128i*)(ptr)) :
_mm_loadu_si128((__m128i*)(ptr))
extern char x[16];
__m128i y;
void
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113034
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
A bug in loongarch_secondary_reload is causing an infinite loop:
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
index 5ffd06ce9be..c0a0af3dda5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113151
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/641443.html
I've successfully built Xwayland with patched GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|14.0 ICE: maximum num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113148
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113033
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Missed-optimization fixed at r14-6851.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113124
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113124
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alexey Dobriyan from comment #7)
> > fancy C++ extension
>
> It is not fancy.
>
> C99 initialisers is the only feature where Modern C beats Modern C++.
Fancy or not you should ask the standard co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113177
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-30
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113177
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190
Bug ID: 113190
Summary: Alert not to report bugs against EOL releases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112457
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
601 - 700 of 1044 matches
Mail list logo
