https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
And in fact the optimal code for
int t(int x, _Bool y)
{
return x * y;
}
should be
maskeqz $r4,$r4,$r5
jr $r1
like
int t(int x, _Bool y)
{
return y ? x : 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> >
> > so we still slightly penalty multiplication. To me we should code
> > COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1 into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
>
> so we still slightly penalty multiplication. To me we should code
> COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1 into loongarch_rtx_cost_optimize_size instead of
> special casing it
Scratch the previous one, the "slightly different version" I had before
it was not entirely broken due to unnecessary, suboptimal and incorrect
use of ctz. Here I have yet another implementation of that loop that
should perform better and even work correctly ;-)
This one has so far regstrapped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
On a LA664 it seems a mul.w instruction costs 4 times a "simple" instruction
like add.w/sub.w/and, and div.w costs 5 times.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> /* Default RTX cost initializer. */
> ...
> int_mult_si (COSTS_N_INSNS (1)),
> int_mult_di (COSTS_N_INSNS (1)),
>
>
> That seems wrong.
> I suspect you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112917
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Default RTX cost initializer. */
...
int_mult_si (COSTS_N_INSNS (1)),
int_mult_di (COSTS_N_INSNS (1)),
That seems wrong.
I suspect you will get other improvements when you touch this.
E.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Note that for
int t(int x, _Bool y)
{
return x * y;
}
even GCC 13 is generating the sub-optimal mul.w instruction. So perhaps this
is just a target issue after all...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112935
Bug ID: 112935
Summary: [14 Regression] Performance regression in Coremarks
crcu8 function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 12/8/23 16:15, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:09:18PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/5/23 15:31, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
This test shows that we cannot clear *walk_subtrees in
cp_fold_immediate_r when
According to RVV ISA, we can allow vwadd.wv v2, v2, v3 overlap.
Before this patch:
nop
vsetivlizero,4,e8,m4,tu,ma
vle16.v v8,0(a0)
vmv8r.v v0,v8
vwsub.wvv0,v8,v12
nop
addia4,a0,100
vle16.v v8,0(a4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112934
Bug ID: 112934
Summary: excessive code for std::map::erase(key)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could this be a linker relaxation issue? Does -Wl,--no-relax solve the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #3)
> A slightly more reduced testcase without the extra printf:
> https://godbolt.org/z/1xjPzs9v5
Note add_em_up should techincally have:
__builtin_va_end(ap);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
A slightly more reduced testcase without the extra printf:
https://godbolt.org/z/1xjPzs9v5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112778
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112804
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112784
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112933
Bug ID: 112933
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sme2/acle-asm/read_za16_vg1x2.c
fails on aarch64_be
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
--- Comment #2 from Patrick O'Neill ---
I tried messing around with it - turns out passing the 'b' variable isn't
required:
https://godbolt.org/z/EKa15xqYP
Using a variadic function reproduces the problem:
https://godbolt.org/z/n95sxY1Y8
Comply with dubious doc warning that after an @xref there must be a
comma or a period, not a close parentheses.
Build-testing on x86_64-linux-gnu now. Ok to install?
for gcc/ChangeLog
* doc/invoke.texi (multiflags): Add period after @xref to
silence warning.
---
The recently-added logic for -finline-stringops=memset introduced an
assumption that doesn't necessarily hold, namely, that
can_store_by_pieces of a larger size implies can_store_by_pieces by
smaller sizes. Checks for all sizes the by-multiple-pieces machinery
might use before committing to an
On aarch64 -milp32, and presumably on other such targets, ptr can be
in a different mode than ptr_mode in the testcase. Cope with it.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested the new test on
aarch64-elf. Ok to install?
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/112804
* builtins.cc
smallest_int_mode_for_size may abort when the requested mode is not
available. Call int_mode_for_size instead, that signals the
unsatisfiable request in a more graceful way.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR middle-end/112784
* expr.cc
On Nov 22, 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
FYI, Linaro's regression tester let me know that my patch reversal, that
expected this patch to go in instead, caused two "regressions".
https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1067
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy
Hello, Jeff, DJ,
Thanks for the info.
On Dec 7, 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/6/23 15:03, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>>> This looks like a latent bug in the port.
>> I'm not surprised, that port was weird.
>>
>>> This was just a plain asm insn in strub.c:
>>>
>>> /* Make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112932
Bug ID: 112932
Summary: [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b vector: Incorrect behavior
with nested loop array writing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112931
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are many of these same ICE on a few testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112931
Bug ID: 112931
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sme2/acle-asm/write_za16_vg1x2.c
ICEs on aarch64_be
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112930
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
gcc.target/aarch64/sme/locally_streaming_3.c fails the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112930
Bug ID: 112930
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sme/call_sm_switch_7.c ICEs on
aarch64_be
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
On Dec 7, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Thanks for raising the issue. Maybe there should be at least a comment
> there, and perhaps some asserts to check that pointer and reference
> types don't make to indirect_parms.
Document why attribute access doesn't need the same treatment as fn
spec,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not seeing anything wrong with the difference even.
What if you change printf for a different function which still takes a variable
arguments but does nothing (in a different TU)? Does it still fail?
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/builtin/strcmp-run.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/builtin/strcmp-run.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/builtin/strcmp-run.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/builtin/strcmp-run.c execution test
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112929
Bug ID: 112929
Summary: [14] RISC-V vector: Variable clobbered at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have updated the diff. I don't know have ChangeLog works under git. Here's
what I have written.
* gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi: Remove the "Extended math intrinsics" node.
It documented the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56810|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f3bac474e8f6563a59f814ccf7609ced48b1157
commit r14-6353-g0f3bac474e8f6563a59f814ccf7609ced48b1157
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
Although cgit is more efficient than gitweb it still is not great
for bots to go through it.
---
htdocs/robots.txt | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/htdocs/robots.txt b/htdocs/robots.txt
index c650057b..b9fc830d 100644
--- a/htdocs/robots.txt
+++ b/htdocs/robots.txt
@@ -6,6 +6,7
Clean up scan dump failures on linux rv64 vector targets Juzhe mentioned
could be ignored for now. This will help reduce noise and make it more obvious
if a bug or regression is introduced. The failures that are still reported
are either execution failures or failures that are also present on
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 23:43 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> > On 21.11.23 14:57, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 02:09 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > Sorry for barging in though I did try finding the relevant
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||goon.pri.low at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112928
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does this show up in real code? If so the code is undefined and should be
fixed.
Note we could even replace the comparison directly with `__builtin_unreachable
()` and it would be valid transformation due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112928
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
No compiler I tested changes this to a constant ...
I almost want to say this should be closed as won't fix ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112928
Bug ID: 112928
Summary: missed-optimization: automatic storage address
comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Snapshot gcc-12-20231208 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20231208/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112927
Bug ID: 112927
Summary: -Wanalyzer-tainted-size false positive seen in Linux
kernel's drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_devintf.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
I've tried this with both older versions as well as GCC 12.3 (latest I
have access to). This is on GNU/Linux on x86_64.
I have the following code:
#include
class Exception : public std::exception
{
public:
Exception(const char* text, ...)
__attribute__((format(printf,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 83167, which changed state.
Bug 83167 Summary: decltype((x)) inside lambda is considered odr-use if x is
not a reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83167
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83167
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83167
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9965fef40794d548021d2e34844e5fafeca4ce5
commit r14-6350-gd9965fef40794d548021d2e34844e5fafeca4ce5
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:09:18PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/5/23 15:31, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > This test shows that we cannot clear *walk_subtrees in
> > cp_fold_immediate_r when we're
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as r14-6349-g0bef72539e585d.
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
* sm-taint.cc (taint_state_machine::alt_get_inherited_state): Fix
handling of TRUNC_MOD_EXPR.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as r14-6348-g08262e78209ed4.
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
* region-model.cc (contains_uninit_p): Only check for
svalues that the infoleak warning can handle.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112875
The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64 and ppc64le.
commit 48cb51827c9eb991b92014a3f59d31eb237ce03f
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date: Fri Dec 8 15:37:42 2023 -0500
[PR112875][LRA]: Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111052
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> We should also make ranges::copy implement the std::copy optimization for
> copying to ostreambuf_iterator, which is an important performance
> enhancement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112875
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48cb51827c9eb991b92014a3f59d31eb237ce03f
commit r14-6347-g48cb51827c9eb991b92014a3f59d31eb237ce03f
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112926
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112926
Bug ID: 112926
Summary: issues with nested lambdas and decltype of uncaptured
local variable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63378
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112727
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] UBSAN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112727
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ddaf06e375e1c15dcda338697ab6ea457e6f497
commit r14-6345-g6ddaf06e375e1c15dcda338697ab6ea457e6f497
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On 12/5/23 12:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:45:32AM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
When working on the previous patch I put [[]] [[]] asm (""); into a
testcase, but was surprised it wasn't parsed.
By wasn't
On 12/8/23 12:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:06:01PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
@@ -2,7 +21116,7 @@ cp_parser_elaborated_type_specifier (cp_
}
else if (is_declaration && cp_parser_declares_only_class_p (parser))
cplus_decl_attributes (,
On 12/8/23 12:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:51:19AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
Do we want to do the same for TARGET_EXPR, since those are handled like
SAVE_EXPR in mostly_copy_tree_r?
In mostly_copy_tree_r yes, but I don't see cp_fold doing anything for
TARGET_EXPRs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/Build/gcc/xgcc
-B/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/Build/gcc/
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v16qi.c
-fdiagnostics-plain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I must say I have no idea what WORD_REGISTER_OPERATION says about the upper
bits of a paradoxical SUBREG if it is a MEM and load_extend_op (inner_mode) is
ZERO_EXTEND (zeros then? Then this optimization is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/Build/gcc/xgcc
-B/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/Build/gcc/ -fdiagnostics-plain-output
-mcpu=5235 -Os -c -o pr64461.o
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20231208/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and the reason why given the above
(and:DI (subreg:DI (mem/c:SI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 144)
(symbol_ref:DI ("globalVar") [flags 0x86] )) [1 globalVar+0 S4 A32]) 0)
(const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112875
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Started with r14-53-g675b1a7f113adb1d737adaf78b4fd90be7a0ed1a
I reproduced it and hope to fix it today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
On 12/6/23 02:33, waffl3x wrote:
Here is the next version, it feels very close to finished. As before, I
haven't ran a bootstrap or the full testsuite yet but I did run the
explicit-obj tests which completed as expected.
There's a few test cases that still need to be written but more tests
can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- >8 --
This one was fixed by r12-7714-g47da5198766256.
PR c++/88848
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/inherit/multiple2.C: New test.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/inherit/multiple2.C | 35
1 file changed, 35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a5a5d5e7d32b21205562a35b307ff69e389b996
commit r14-6344-g2a5a5d5e7d32b21205562a35b307ff69e389b996
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5764825aed613f201a8bc47e5b239027a39691f0
commit r14-6342-g5764825aed613f201a8bc47e5b239027a39691f0
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c018a74eb1affe2a1fa385cdddaa93979683420
commit r14-6343-g0c018a74eb1affe2a1fa385cdddaa93979683420
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94264
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5764825aed613f201a8bc47e5b239027a39691f0
commit r14-6342-g5764825aed613f201a8bc47e5b239027a39691f0
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
Excerpts from Yang Yujie's message of Dezember 8, 2023 11:09 am:
> libphobos/ChangeLog:
>
> * m4/druntime/cpu.m4: Support loongarch* targets.
> * libdruntime/Makefile.am: Same.
> * libdruntime/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
> * configure: Regenerate.
> ---
> libphobos/configure
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:06:01PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > @@ -2,7 +21116,7 @@ cp_parser_elaborated_type_specifier (cp_
> > }
> > else if (is_declaration && cp_parser_declares_only_class_p (parser))
> > cplus_decl_attributes (, attributes, (int)
> >
On 12/7/23 03:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 09:36:22AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So, one way to fix the LRA issue would be just to use
lra_insn_recog_data_len = index * 3U / 2;
if (lra_insn_recog_data_len <= index)
lra_insn_recog_data_len = index + 1;
basically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS is extremely ill-defined. Or, it is used for other
things than what it stands for, whichever way you want to look at it.
A backend that defines the macro to non-zero promises
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:51:19AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Do we want to do the same for TARGET_EXPR, since those are handled like
> SAVE_EXPR in mostly_copy_tree_r?
In mostly_copy_tree_r yes, but I don't see cp_fold doing anything for
TARGET_EXPRs (like it does for SAVE_EXPRs), so I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112488
--- Comment #10 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/639961.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112869
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
On 12/5/23 15:31, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
This test shows that we cannot clear *walk_subtrees in
cp_fold_immediate_r when we're in_immediate_context, because that,
as the comment says, affects cp_fold_r as well. Here we had an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112109
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d468718c9a097aeb8794fb1a2df6db2c1064d7f7
commit r14-6341-gd468718c9a097aeb8794fb1a2df6db2c1064d7f7
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112109
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2664964b2f695e947faea4c29dbddd3615cc4b0b
commit r14-6340-g2664964b2f695e947faea4c29dbddd3615cc4b0b
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Fri
On 12/6/23 09:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 11:01:20AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
And there is another thing I wonder about: with -Wno-attributes= we are
supposed to ignore the attributes altogether, but we are actually still
warning about them when we emit these generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112925
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> +#if __cplusplus >= 201103L && 0
Oops, without the && 0 obviously. I was testing performance with and without
it.
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
