On 11/18/22 08:18, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Yeah, good point. How does the version below look? Tested as before.
I guess it's a philosophical question what distinguishes "late compilation"
from everything else, but I think it makes sense for it to mean "no code
motion" (among other
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 09/35] arm: improve tests for vmax*
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 08/35] arm: improve tests for vmin*
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 06/35] arm: improve tests and fix vdupq*
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> *
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 04/35] arm: improve tests and fix vdwdupq*
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> *
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 05/35] arm: improve vidupq* tests
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 03/35] arm: improve tests and fix vddupq*
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> *
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:45AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Right, that's the C++17 implicit constexpr for lambdas, finish_function:
> >
> >/* Lambda closure members are implicitly constexpr if possible. */
> >if (cxx_dialect >= cxx17
> >&& LAMBDA_TYPE_P (CP_DECL_CONTEXT
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 02/35] arm: fix 'vmsr' spacing and register capitalization
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 03:19:07PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Richard,
>
> Honestly, it’s very hard for me to decide what’s the best way to handle the
> interaction
> between -fstrict-flex-array=M and -Warray-bounds=N.
>
> Ideally, -fstrict-flex-array=M should completely control the
On 11/18/22 10:03, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 08:48:32AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:15:05PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
--- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2022-11-16 14:44:43.692339668 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/decl.cc 2022-11-17 20:53:44.102011594 +0100
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Bug ID: 107752
Summary: Lack of offset information in AddressSanitizer reports
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
On 11/18/22 05:49, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:52:36 -0500
Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/17/22 14:02, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:53:32 -0500
Jason Merrill wrote:
Instead, you want to copy the location for instantiations, i.e. check
On 11/17/22 22:49, Yixuan Chen wrote:
Subject:
[PATCH] optimize the testcase for architectures that use ".srodata"
From:
Yixuan Chen
Date:
11/17/22, 22:49
To:
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
CC:
kito.ch...@gmail.com, and...@sifive.com, oriachi...@gmail.com,
jia...@iscas.ac.cn, Yixuan Chen
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 03:52:26PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2022/11/17 02:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:51:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >>/* In vector.md, we support all kinds of vector float point
> >> comparison operators in a comparison rtl
Hi, Richard,
Honestly, it’s very hard for me to decide what’s the best way to handle the
interaction
between -fstrict-flex-array=M and -Warray-bounds=N.
Ideally, -fstrict-flex-array=M should completely control the behavior of
-Warray-bounds.
If possible, I prefer this solution.
However,
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 11/11/22 09:21, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Arm's SME adds a new processor mode called streaming mode.
>> This mode enables some new (matrix-oriented) instructions and
>> disables several existing groups of instructions, such as most
>>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:03:18AM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > the lambda operator() when still a template as constexpr and then
> > cp_finish_decl -> diagnose_static_in_constexpr pedwarns on it.
> > For the above perhaps we could figure out there is a static int k; in the
> > operator() and
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:59:00PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2022/11/17 02:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:48:25PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >>* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_emit_vector_compare_inner): Remove
> >>float only comparison operators.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106462
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I built mips64el-linux-gnuabi64 but using -mabi=64 -msingle-float for it gives
cc1: error: unsupported combination: -mgp64 -mno-odd-spreg
Did I miss something?
On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This patch adds initial support for early break vectorization in GCC.
> The support is added for any target that implements a vector cbranch optab.
I'm looking at this now, first some high-level questions.
Why do we need a new cbranch
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 08:48:32AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:15:05PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > --- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2022-11-16 14:44:43.692339668 +0100
> > > +++ gcc/cp/decl.cc2022-11-17 20:53:44.102011594 +0100
> > > @@ -5600,6 +5600,57 @@
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches bounces+kyrylo.tkachov=arm@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Kyrylo
> Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 9:06 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH][committed] aarch64: Fix up LDAPR codegen
>
> Hi all,
>
> Upon
[ Please cc: me and Ke Wen on rs6000 patches ]
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:54:29AM +0800, Hongyu Wang wrote:
> r13-3950-g071e428c24ee8c enables O2 small loop unrolling, but it breaks
> -fno-unroll-loops for rs6000 with loop_unroll_adjust hook. Adjust the
> option handling and target hook
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 15:34, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 11/17/22 16:56, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 15:41:26 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/12/22 14:29, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >>> Users might use explicit arithmetic operations to create a mask and
>
On 11/17/22 16:56, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 15:41:26 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On 11/12/22 14:29, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
Users might use explicit arithmetic operations to create a mask and
then and it, in a sequence like
cond = (bits >> SHIFT) & 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the bug is in swap_rtx_condition.
It is called on:
(insn 10023 10021 10024 4 (set (reg:CCFP 17 flags)
(unspec:CCFP [
(compare:CCFP (reg:XF 9 st(1) [orig:84 _3 ] [84])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > should not, so that it does what it says, if nothing else.
>
> Yes, and
Sorry for the late reply on this. I was wondering though why the check
made sense. The way I see it, SI -> SI mode is either wrong or useless.
So why not:
if it is wrong, error (gcc_assert?) so we know it was generated wrongly
somehow and fix it;
if it is useless, still use this pattern as we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
> Sorry about the breakage; thanks for filing this, and for the patch.
>
> Looking at:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #4)
> cut...
>
> Yes, I've already posted the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606478.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107751
Bug ID: 107751
Summary: [11/12 regression] False positive
-Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 5:29 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> We have the following two hooks into the call expansion code:
>
> - TARGET_CALL_ARGS is called for each argument before arguments
> are moved into hard registers.
>
> - TARGET_END_CALL_ARGS is called after the end of
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
> Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
> the LEVEL of the 'strict_flex_array (LEVEL)' attribute attached to
> the trailing array field of a structure if it's available,
> otherwise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
...and also, as you note:
* deleting the unrelated code ` int *d = 0;` should not affect the result
(but does)
> the path note `(3) 'e' is NULL` is wrong, this may suggest some problems.
Note (3) seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
It's analyzing "a" twice: as called by main, and as a standalone function.
The warning comes from the analysis of "a" as a standalone function; if I
delete "main" from the
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:46 PM Arthur Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/9/22 14:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:37 AM wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Philip Herron
> >>
> >> This patch contains the entry point and utilities used for the lowering
> >> of HIR nodes to `tree`s. It also
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:46 PM Arthur Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/9/22 14:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:37 AM wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Philip Herron
> >>
> >> This patch contains the entry point and utilities used for the lowering
> >> of HIR nodes to `tree`s. It also
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 3:28 AM Michael Collison wrote:
>
> This patches transforms ((x & 0x1) == 0) ? y : z y -into
> (-(typeof(y))(x & 0x1) & z) y, where op is a '^' or a '|'. It also
> transforms (cond (and (x , 0x1) != 0), (z op y), y ) into (-(and (x ,
> 0x1)) & z ) op y.
>
> Matching this
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:44 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> This patch set contains the .h, .cc and .flex files found in
> gcc/m2. The files are tightly coupled with the gimple interface
> (see 04-gimple-interface) and built using the rules found in
> (01-03-make).
>
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:20 AM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:35:30PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> > 在 2022/11/17 21:24, David Edelsohn 写道:
> > > Why are you using zero_constant predicate instead of matching
> (const_int 0) for operand 2?
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 53925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53925=edit
Patch for missing includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
Bug ID: 107750
Summary: Many gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-*.c tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:35:30PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> 在 2022/11/17 21:24, David Edelsohn 写道:
> > Why are you using zero_constant predicate instead of matching (const_int 0)
> > for operand 2?
> The "const_int 0" is an operand other than a predicate. We need a predicate
> here.
Said
> Am 18.11.2022 um 11:44 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> Practically strictly
>>> preserving IEEE exceptions is only important for a very small audience, and
>>> for that even INEXACT will matter (but we still have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53923=edit
gcc13-pr107748-uglify.patch
Besides the missing uglification in this spot, I found some others (only
checked for .
I wonder if instead of disabling ranger altogether, we could disable code
changes (constant propagation, jump threading and simplify_using_ranges)?
Or does that sound like too much hassle?
It seems that some passes (instruction selection?) could benefit from
global ranges being available even if
Le 17/11/2022 à 21:48, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit :
Dear all,
one cannot pass a NULL actual argument to a procedure without an
explicit interface. This is detected and reported by NAG and Intel.
(Cray accepts this silently, and some other brands ICE.)
The testcase by Gerhard even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> float
> _mm_cvtsbh_ss (__bf16 __A)
> {
> union{ float sf; __bf16 bf[2];} __tmp;
> __tmp.sf = 0.0f;
> __tmp.bf[1] = __A;
> return __tmp.sf;
> }
>
> Looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
float
_mm_cvtsbh_ss (__bf16 __A)
{
union{ float sf; __bf16 bf[2];} __tmp;
__tmp.sf = 0.0f;
__tmp.bf[1] = __A;
return __tmp.sf;
}
Looks like gcc can optimize it to
_mm_cvtsbh_ss(bool _Accum):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107749
Bug ID: 107749
Summary: onlinedocs: gdc docs got removed during sphinx revert
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 11/18/22 11:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Practically strictly
preserving IEEE exceptions is only important for a very small audience, and
for that even INEXACT will matter (but we still have -ftrapping-math
by default).
For that
Use Zbs when generating a sequence for
"if ((a & twobits) == singlebit) ..."
that can be expressed as
bexti + bexti + andn.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/bitmanip.md
(*branch_mask_twobits_equals_singlebit):
Handle "if ((a & T) == C)" using Zbs, when T has 2 bits set
Sequences of the form "a | C" and "a ^ C" with C being the positive
half of a signed immediate's range with one extra bit set in addition
are mapped to ori/xori and one bseti/binvi to avoid using a temporary
(and a multi-insn sequence to load C into that temporary).
Something similar holds for "a
We had a few patches on the list that shared predicates (for extending
the reach of xori and ori -- and for the branches on two
polarity-reversed bits) and thus depended on each other.
These all had approval with requested changes, so these are now
collected together for v2.
Note that this
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:52:36 -0500
Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/17/22 14:02, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:53:32 -0500
> > Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> Instead, you want to copy the location for instantiations, i.e. check
> >> DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION instead of
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > Practically strictly
> > preserving IEEE exceptions is only important for a very small audience, and
> > for that even INEXACT will matter (but we still have -ftrapping-math
> > by default).
> > For that audience likely all
On 11/18/22 09:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:38 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
So... is the optimization wrong? Are we not allowed to
On 2022-11-18 09:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 6:09 PM Torbjorn SVENSSON via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Hi,
Ping, https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/604895.html
Ok for trunk?
OK.
Pushed.
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
On 2022-11-02 19:13, Torbjorn
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:35 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> This patch set consists of the libgm2 makefile, autoconf sources
> necessary to build the libm2pim, libm2iso, libm2min, libm2cor
> and libm2log.
This looks OK. I suppose it was also tested building a cross-compiler?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:33 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> This patchset contains the c++, h and option related files necessary
> to build the driver program gm2. The patch also consists of the
> autoconf/configure related build infastructure sources found in
> gcc/m2. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Discovered as
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512bf16-cvtsbh2ss-1.c scan-assembler-times sall[
t]+[^{\\n]*16 1
regression with my
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606398.html patch,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
Bug ID: 107748
Summary: [13 Regression] Isn't _mm_cvtsbh_ss incorrect?
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Corallo
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Andrea Corallo
> Subject: [PATCH 01/35] arm: improve vcreateq* tests
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth ---
I fully understand that nobody wants to invest time into fixing this. What
would be nice though, is if this were really just a missed optimization and not
rejecting to compile valid code.
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 8:27 PM
> To: Srinath Parvathaneni
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC] arm: Add support for new frame unwinding
> instruction "0xb5".
>
Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> Tamar Christina writes:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> While writing a patch series I started getting incorrect codegen out from
>> VEC_PERM on partial struct types.
>>
>> It turns out that this was happening because the TARGET_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107747
Bug ID: 107747
Summary: gcc trunk at -Os misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think we have many dups on this. IBM double double isn't accurately emulated
inside of GCC (GCC emulation pretends it is a 106-bit mantissa type, which
isn't true, e.g. for denormals it has only 53-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107746
Bug ID: 107746
Summary: gcc -O1 misses a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hongtao Liu writes:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:59 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Hongtao Liu writes:
>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 5:39 PM Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hongtao Liu writes:
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:39 AM Richard Sandiford
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>>
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 05:53, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:44:31 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On 11/8/22 12:55, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >> If we are testing a register or a paradoxical subreg (i.e. anything that
> >> is not
> >> a partial subreg) for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #7 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> Fixed for trunk. Should we backport it to gcc-12 branch too?
I don't know what the problem is, I always fail when I backport.
If it is convenient for you, could you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Sebastian at SSpaeth dot de
--- Comment
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/17/22 15:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 07:42:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > I thought for older C++ this is to catch
> > > void
> > > foo ()
> > > {
> > >constexpr int a =
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 6:09 AM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:12:23 PST (-0800), christoph.muell...@vrull.eu
> wrote:
> > From: Christoph Müllner
> >
> > This patch adds support for the two AIA ISA extensions Ssaia and Smaia.
> > They are not relelvant for the compiler, but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth ---
(sid_ppc64el-dchroot)~$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/12/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
Hi all,
Upon some further inspection I realised I had misunderstood some intricacies of
the extending loads of the RCPC feature.
This patch fixes up the recent GCC support accordingly. In particular:
* The sign-extending forms are a form of LDAPURS* and are actually part of
FEAT_RCPC2 that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Fixed for trunk. Should we backport it to gcc-12 branch too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
How did you configure the compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I think ipa-cp adds the call edge info in wrong direction. a.cc.081i.cp snippet
around do3() param1 (our callback):
IPA lattices after all propagation:
Lattices:
...
Node: void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
Bug ID: 107745
Summary: long double constexprs don't work with * or /, but
work with + and - (JUST ON PPC)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 6:49 AM Yixuan Chen wrote:
OK.
> 2022-11-18 Yixuan Chen
>
> * gcc.dg/pr25521.c: optimize the testcast for architectures that use
> ".srodata"
>
> testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:26 AM apinski--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> From: Andrew Pinski
>
> The problem here is the gimplifier returns GS_ERROR but
> in some cases we don't check that soon enough and try
> to do other work which could crash.
> So the fix in these two cases is to return
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:26 AM apinski--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> From: Andrew Pinski
>
> The problem here is after we created a call expression
> in the C front-end, we replace the decl type with
> an error mark node. We then end up calling
> aggregate_value_p with the call expression
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53888|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #7)
> When debug reports unqualified `Aggregate replacements: 1[0]=callback_fn`
> does it mean ipa-cp does not distinguish between:
> * static void
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:04 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via
Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> ---
> ceb17928e5d1d5 copied (parts of) the valgrind annotation checks from gcc
> to libcpp. The above copies the missing pieces to libcpp to diagnose
> when libcpp is configured with --enable-valgrind-annotations
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:38 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > > So... is the optimization wrong? Are we not allowed to substitute
> > > that NAN if we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107717
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> Fixed
Thanks for the fix! It also give me a good tip for match pattern writing :)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 6:09 PM Torbjorn SVENSSON via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ping, https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/604895.html
>
> Ok for trunk?
OK.
> Kind regards,
> Torbjörn
>
> On 2022-11-02 19:13, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ping,
101 - 200 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
