> I suggest 'deduce', 'deduction', 'deducing a range'. What the code is
> actually doing is deducing that 'b' in 'a / b' cannot be zero. Function in
> GCC might be called like 'deduce_ranges_from_stmt'.
Or "infer", "inference", "inferring a range".
> Please don't overload 'side effect' if
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 8:38 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > > Still waiting for a suggestion, since "side effect" is the description
> > > that made sense to me :-)
> >
> > I think side-effect captures it quite well even if it
The first release candidate for GCC 9.5 is available from
https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.5.0-RC-20220520/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
1bc79c506205b6a5db82897340bdebaaf7ada934.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate
on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105667
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
On 5/19/22 21:35, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2022, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Joseph,
May I ping you on this version? (I've moved the tests to gcc.dg/torture/ and
checked they work on aarch64 and x86_64.
This version is OK, given a bug report filed in Bugzilla for
On 5/19/22 17:02, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Similarly to cgraph_nodes, it may happen that body_removed is set
>> during merging of symbols.
>>
>> PR ipa/105600
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>
>> Ready to be installed?
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105669
Bug ID: 105669
Summary: DFP to HF (_Float16) conversions use incorrect
rounding
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103116
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdf50499a40399a48ac5e5d521ef93ed302be157
commit r12-8405-gfdf50499a40399a48ac5e5d521ef93ed302be157
Author: Richard
Status
==
The GCC 9 branch is now frozen for its final release, GCC 9.5.
The branch will be closed after that.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2 369 - 58
P3
Status
==
The GCC 9 branch is now frozen for its final release, GCC 9.5.
The branch will be closed after that.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2 369 - 58
P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Hi Jakub,
On 19.05.22 18:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:29:23PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
I've attached v2 of the patch. Currently in testing.
Just a general rant, the non-requires dynamic_allocators support
seems to be a total mess in the standard. Probably something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105664
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #7)
> So, to summarise my understanding:
>
> - the problem is not specific to darwin, I can fully reproduce on
> x86_64-linux-gnu
>
> - the problem only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
> Or perhaps there shouldnt be
> set (BIT_NOT_EXPR, op_bitwise_not);
> set (BIT_XOR_EXPR, op_bitwise_xor);
>
> operations on pointer values? I see also
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Still waiting for a suggestion, since "side effect" is the description
> > that made sense to me :-)
>
> I think side-effect captures it quite well even if it overlaps with a term
> used in language standards. Doing c = a << b has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
bitwise and is allowed for pointers on GIMPLE for alignment purposes and to
avoid round-trips to/from integer types for this. It's only natural to then
allow all bit operations on pointers (and hard to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105662
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think that first of all controlling this per OMP/OACC region would be more
useful (as for the "mandatory on-device" case). Shouldn't there be sth in the
respective specs for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 4:15 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 5/19/22 18:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 09:22:32AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> On 5/18/22 16:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
>
> > It's difficult (if not impossible) for the vectorizer to second-guess
> > the followup FRE, we're a long way from doing loop + SLP vectorization
> > in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
>
> Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
>
>What|Removed
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
