On 9/2/23 18:40, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to use the ranger from inside of cfgexpand but since at
this point we have a mix of RTL and gimple basic blocks, things fall
over very fast.
First does it make sense to use the ranger from expand or should we
change the gimple
Hi,
I was trying to use the ranger from inside of cfgexpand but since at
this point we have a mix of RTL and gimple basic blocks, things fall
over very fast.
First does it make sense to use the ranger from expand or should we
change the gimple IR in isel instead if we have a better way of doing
Snapshot gcc-13-20230902 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20230902/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Right now ssa_name_has_boolean_range compares the range to
range_true_and_false but instead we would get the nonzero bits and
compare that to 1 instead (<=u 1).
The nonzerobits comparison can be done in similar fashion.
Note I think get_nonzero_bits is redundant as the range queury will
return a
This replaces all uses of ssa_name_has_boolean_range with zero_one_valued_p
except for the one in the definition of zero_one_valued_p. This simplifies
the code in general and makes only one way of saying we have a range of [0,1].
Note this depends on the patch that adds ssa_name_has_boolean_range
Currently zero_one_valued_p uses tree_nonzero_bits which uses
the global ranges of the SSA Names. We can improve this via using
ssa_name_has_boolean_range which uses the local ranges
which are used while handling folding during VRP and other passes.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64 with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
A failed build has been detected on builder gccrust-gentoo-sparc while building
gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/241/builds/954
Build state: failed '! grep ...' (failure)
Revision: abf727d29eb7d70e238fd837921f2e5fb4e3fec0
Worker:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
So there is a pattern for:
/* Simplify ((C <> x) & D) != 0 where C and D are power of two constants,
either to false if D is smaller (unsigned comparison) than C, or to
x == log2 (D) - log2 (C).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
$ git bisect good 143151ac2013c22e
53891f18f32588d86ba0ec1c5e6206df63be714b is the first bad commit
commit 53891f18f32588d86ba0ec1c5e6206df63be714b
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date: Thu Aug 24 17:35:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
All the OpenMP commits in that range are by Sandra Loosemore
.
Not sure yet, but a likely candidate so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to François Dumont from comment #7)
> > Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55832=edit
first attempt at fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that it's tripping over a BIND_EXPR with a null BIND_EXPR_BLOCK.
The attached patch stops the testcase from ICE'ing but hasn't been otherwise
tested yet.
I'm not sure what a null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110529
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111273
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not an error, it's a warning.
It's only an error because you asked for it to be an error.
Committed, thanks Kito.
Pan
From: Kito Cheng
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2023 11:41 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Support FP MAX/MIN autovec for VLS mode
Ok
Pan Li via Gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code seems to be:
struct _Vector_base {
~_Vector_base();
};
int ColumnSmallestLastOrdering_OMP_i_MaxNumThreads,
ColumnSmallestLastOrdering_OMP_i_MaxDegree;
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111213
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds|-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> So maybe:
> ```
> (simplify
> (cond
> (eq:c@3 (convert1? @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
> (convert2? @0)
> INTEGER_CST@2
> )
> (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110413
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I noticed on many of these, the return value of the static function is an
address (constant). Seems like we could do something like IPA-CCP for return
values. And that will fix almost all of them ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
Bug ID: 111275
Summary: ifcombine and reassociation does not like to produce
`a ^ b` sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Bug ID: 111276
Summary: rewrite_to_defined_overflow rewrites already defined
code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103536
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with `--param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0` this is optimized earlier
due to getting many bb instead of
```
_1 = a_4(D) | b_5(D);
if (_1 != 0)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
In git, there are 71 commits, so trying g:c28c579f0dd9cd27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25643
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the difference now is:
```
void f0(int n, float *v)
{
int i;
if (n <= 0)
return;
else
{
i = 1;
do {
if (i > n) __builtin_abort ();
v[i] = 0.0;
i++;
Ok
Pan Li via Gcc-patches 於 2023年9月2日 週六，16:54寫道：
> From: Pan Li
>
> This patch would like to allow the VLS mode autovec for the
> floating-point binary operation MAX/MIN.
>
> Given below code example:
>
> test (float *out, float *in1, float *in2)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 128; i++)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31889
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Except it is no longer fixed by that. That broke in GCC 10.
It broke in GCC 10 because we now have:
```
if (_10 < _12)
goto ; [1.04%]
else
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #19 from Gašper Ažman ---
Correct, the use of the capture is the source of the error, not the
instantiation with an unrelated type.
On Sat, Sep 2, 2023, 09:54 waffl3x at protonmail dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Git range is g:4024ddbe50c2d1cb .. g:87f9b6c2cfd7b829,
so 9 commits left.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:48:22PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This patch is OK with these fixes.
Thanks, here is an updated patch, thanks for catching the _Decimal128
bug. Will post testsuite additions/adjustment patch as follow-up on Monday.
2023-09-02 Jakub Jelinek
PR c/102989
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:32:22PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This patch is OK with those fixes.
Thanks, here is the updated patch. Queued with the rest of approved
patches.
2023-09-02 Jakub Jelinek
PR c/102989
gcc/
* doc/libgcc.texi (Bit-precise integer arithmetic
Per http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling
Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/egcs-1.0/index.html| 2 +-
htdocs/egcs-1.1/features.html | 2 +-
htdocs/egcs-1.1/index.html| 2 +-
htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html| 2 +-
htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html| 2 +-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
Bug ID: 111274
Summary: ice in fixup_blocks_walker with -O1 and -fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
The patch refers to the submission of RISCV
7bbce9b50302959286381d9177818642bceaf301.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.cc (loongarch_extend_comparands):
In unsigned QImode test, check for sign extended subreg and/or
constant operands, and do a sign extend in
This allows removal of one conversion and in the case of booleans, might be
able to remove
the negate and the other conversion later on.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
PR tree-optimization/107137
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Patch posted:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629018.html
>
> What I can do is
> This should be fixed now. I rewrote the test to check the padding byte
> directly, instead of inspecting a copy of it which might not preserve
> the padding bits.
Great, thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
Hey Jakub, thanks for the response
and criticism, as soon as I am
back at a computer I will address
the issues you raised, I have a few
questions though.
I apologize in advanced for any
errors in formatting this message,
I'm writing it from a hotel room
on a phone so errors are inevitable,
but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #18 from waffl3x ---
(In reply to Gašper Ažman from comment #17)
> Read through the patch quickly, want to suggest a few tests.
>
> When a lambda has captures, the explicit object parameter is used to get at
> them *silently*, if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #7)
> Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
Well, I thought I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |
v2: Modify commit message.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.md: Support 'G' -> 'k' in
movsf_hardfloat and movdf_hardfloat.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/loongarch/const-double-zero-stx.c: New test.
---
gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
For sure _Hash_node layout didn't change, that's why I couldn't think of any
abi issue here.
I see that you already had the solution ! It was some kind of test then, I
failed :-).
Did you try it ? If
On 9/2/23 14:24, Lulu Cheng wrote:
The patch refers to the submission of RISCV
7bbce9b50302959286381d9177818642bceaf301.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.cc (loongarch_extend_comparands):
In unsigned QImode test, check for sign extended subreg and/or
constant
From: Pan Li
This patch would like to allow the VLS mode autovec for the
floating-point binary operation MAX/MIN.
Given below code example:
test (float *out, float *in1, float *in2)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 128; i++)
out[i] = in1[i] > in2[i] ? in1[i] : in2[i];
// Or out[i] = fmax
56 matches
Mail list logo
