O compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220218 (experimental) (GCC)
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Russian team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/ru.po
(This file,
cpplib-12.1-b20220213.ru.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
Respected Sir/Madam
I am Purvak Baliyan, an Information Technology undergrad, I have entered my
third year at DR. Akhilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology &
Management(ADGITM). I am new to open source contributions but i am well
aware of C/C++, Data Structure and Algorithms, and HTML & CSS. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #7 from herumi ---
Created attachment 52478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52478=edit
an original code
The array-bounds.zip file is a little stripped original issue.
array-bounds% g++-11.2 -O2 -c a.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am trying to understand what you are trying to do.
> You want to mark an insn with a comment
One ore more insns, yes.
> which is emitted during formation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to herumi from comment #5)
> >Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source (-save-temps)
> >since it really does look like a seperate issue all together.
>
> May I attach a zipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #5 from herumi ---
>Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source (-save-temps) since
>it really does look like a seperate issue all together.
May I attach a zipped a.ii which is generated by the following commands?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to herumi from comment #3)
> The reason why I made this code is from the issue:
> https://github.com/herumi/xbyak/issues/137
Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #3 from herumi ---
>Also if this is from some larger code,
>it might be useful to have the non-reduced testcase
>since the reduced testcase might being showing something different.
The reason why I made this code is from the issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong detection of g++ |[10/11/12 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-DA just changes inlining.
This is just an inlining mess which you can see from the diagnostic on the
trunk:
In member function 'bool Base::isX() const',
inlined from 'bool Base::operator==(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
Bug ID: 104603
Summary: wrong detection of g++ -Warray-bounds about downcast
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104602
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534374.html
Explains why it is currently this way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104602
Bug ID: 104602
Summary: std::source_location::current uses cast from void*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, missed-optimization
This libgo patch based on patches by Svante Signell updates the hurd
support in libgo. This is for GCC PR 104290. Bootstrapped and ran Go
testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
fa59861178df32a1f1271be6f763b71d2bb5ecab
diff --git a/gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3343e7e2c4cd2cd111cda86737f539cc6eda49ff
commit r12-7298-g3343e7e2c4cd2cd111cda86737f539cc6eda49ff
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
On Dec 15, 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
>> * expr.c (emit_move_complex_parts): Skip clobbers during lra.
> OK for the next cycle.
Thanks, but having looked into PR 104121, I withdraw this patch and also
the already-installed patch for PR 103302. As I found out, LRA does
worse without the clobbers for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
But adding noipa to f does though:
[[gnu::noipa]]
std::optional f() { return 1; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This changed with r11-3408-ge977dd5edbcc3a3b88c3bd7efa1026c845af7487
Hmm, even -fno-ipa-modref does not prevent the wrong code from showing up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase without the unneeded which aborts if miscompiled.
#include
#include
inline std::optional a(std::vector::iterator b,
std::vector::iterator c,
An allocate clause in target region must specify an allocator
unless the compilation unit has requires construct with
dynamic_allocators clause. Current implementation of the allocate
clause did not check for this restriction. This patch fills that
gap.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* omp-low.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-18
Hi,
Can anyone of OpenMP contributors review my last patch?
Thanks
Mohamed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Invalid |[11/12 Regression] Invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #22 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. I'll commit your patches #1 through #8.
Your patch #9 is to a generated file. The fix there can't be to patch just the
top-level Makefile.in. It has to be to patch whatever is causing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Bug ID: 104601
Summary: [11 Regression] Invalid branch elimination at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Snapshot gcc-10-20220218 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20220218/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100289
Joerg Wunsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j at uriah dot heep.sax.de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw, does this issue exist for the corresponding __builtin_{un,}pack_ibm128
builtins as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #28)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> > OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
> > builtins should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am trying to understand what you are trying to do.
You want to mark an insn with a comment which is emitted during formation of
the prologue generation as being generated because of a specific option?
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:39 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:33 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:58 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 4:54 AM Roger Sayle
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
From: Andrew Pinski
The problem here is we end up with an error_mark_node when calling
useless_type_conversion_p and that ICEs. STRIP_NOPS/tree_nop_conversion
has had a check for the inner type being an error_mark_node since g9a6bb3f78c96
(2000). This just adds the check also to
This patch has been committed to the devel/omp/gcc-11 development branch:
249df772b70f7b9f50f68030d4ea9c25624cc578 openmp: Improve handling of
nested OpenMP metadirectives in C and C++
Kwok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Hmm:
> _14 = {_1, _5};
> _8 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__int128>(_14);
>
> Wouldn't it better to convert that to just (hopefully I got the order
> correct):
> t1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104600
Bug ID: 104600
Summary: VCE(vector){} should be converted (or
expanded) into BIT_INSERT_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
This patch updates libgo to the Go1.18rc1 release. Bootstrapped and
ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
patch.txt.bz2
Description: application/bzip
This patch (to be applied on top of the metadirective patch series)
addresses issues found in the C/C++ parsers when nested metadirectives
are used.
analyze_metadirective_body when encountering code like:
#pragma omp metadirective when {set={...}: A)
#pragma omp metadirective when
On 2/17/22 1:04 PM, Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Please send patches as plain text, not as base64.
>
> It seems like Thunderbird does not support this anymore since later
> versions, grml. Probably need to look for another mail client.
I use Thunderbird with no problems. I use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96445
--- Comment #2 from tyu at eridex dot org ---
The extern template and constant are what would appear in the header file for
class C. The explicit instantiation would appear in the source file:
// -- C.h
template
class C {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
--- Comment #18 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One question here, for the following testing case:
[opc@qinzhao-ol7u9 104550]$ cat t1.c
struct vx_audio_level {
int has_monitor_level : 1;
};
void vx_set_monitor_level() {
struct
This patch implements OpenMP 5.0 "declare mapper" support for C++ --
except for arrays of structs with mappers, which are TBD. I've taken cues
from the existing "declare reduction" support where appropriate, though
obviously the details of implementation differ somewhat (in particular,
"declare
This patch adds support for parsing general lvalues for OpenMP "map"
clauses to the C front-end, similar to the previous patch for C++.
This version of the patch fixes several omissions regarding non-DECL_P
root terms in map clauses (i.e. "*foo" in "(*foo)->ptr->arr[:N]") --
similar to the
This patch changes the representation of OMP array sections in the
C++ front end to use the new OMP_ARRAY_SECTION tree code instead of a
TREE_LIST. This is important for "declare mapper" support, because the
array section representation may stick around longer (in "declare mapper"
definitions),
This patch changes parsing for OpenMP map clauses in C++ to use the
generic expression parser, hence adds support for parsing general
lvalues (as required by OpenMP 5.0+). So far only a few new types of
expression are actually supported throughout compilation (including
everything in the
Several places in the C and C++ front-ends dig through OpenMP addresses
from "map" clauses (etc.) in order to determine whether they are component
accesses that need "attach" operations, check duplicate mapping clauses,
and so on. When we're extending support for more kinds of lvalues in
map
This patch is a combination of several previously-posted patches,
rebased and squashed together, and with a couple of additional bugfixes:
"Rewrite GOMP_MAP_ATTACH_DETACH mappings unconditionally"
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585440.html
"OpenMP/OpenACC: Move
This patch has been split out from the previous one to avoid a
confusingly-interleaved diff. The two patches should probably be
committed squashed together.
2021-10-01 Julian Brown
gcc/
* gimplify.c (is_or_contains_p, omp_target_reorder_clauses): Delete.
---
gcc/gimplify.cc | 207
This patch reimplements the omp_target_reorder_clauses function in
anticipation of supporting "deeper" struct mappings (that is, with
several structure dereference operators, or similar).
The idea is that in place of the (possibly quadratic) algorithm in
omp_target_reorder_clauses that greedily
Hi,
This patch contains rebased/slightly bug-fixed versions of the patches
previously posted in the series:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585439.html
plus a new implementation of "declare mapper" support for C++. This
can't be committed now, but posting now so others
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
> builtins should work (and work the same) whenever long double is
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:04 AM Shubham Narlawar via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to know whether it is correct to add left shift instruction to
> a constant expression statement like "_3 + 4"?
>
> I am trying to add a left shift instruction in between below GIMPLE
> instructions -
>
>:
Hello,
I want to know whether it is correct to add left shift instruction to
a constant expression statement like "_3 + 4"?
I am trying to add a left shift instruction in between below GIMPLE
instructions -
:
instrn_buffer.0_1 = instrn_buffer;
_2 = tree.cnt;
_3 = (int) _2;
_4 = _3 +
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:32 PM Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:47 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > The x86 backend piggy-backs on mode-switching for insertion of
> > vzeroupper. A recent improvement there was implemented in a way
> > to walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104581
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1931cbad498e625b1e24452dcfffe02539b12224
commit r12-7295-g1931cbad498e625b1e24452dcfffe02539b12224
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #21 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
*** Bug 103573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103573
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
On Linux/x86_64,
fe79d652c96b53384ddfa43e312cb0010251391b is the first bad commit
commit fe79d652c96b53384ddfa43e312cb0010251391b
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu Feb 17 14:40:16 2022 +0100
target/104581 - compile-time regression in mode-switching
caused
FAIL:
This patch improves GCC's scalar evolution and final value replacement
optimizations by supporting triangular/quadratic/trapezoid chrecs which
resolves both PR middle-end/65855 and PR c/80852, but alas not (yet)
PR tree-optimization/46186.
I've listed Richard Biener as co-author, as this
Excerpts from Rainer Orth's message of Februar 16, 2022 11:45 pm:
> Hi Iain,
>
>> This patch merges the D front-end implementation with upstream dmd
>> 52844d4b1, as well as the D runtime libraries with druntime dbd0c874,
>> and phobos 896b1d0e1, including the latest features and bug-fixes ahead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Most of those options were removed. Does this problem (adjusted properly,
those options are now enabled iff you use -mcpu=power10 or later) still
happen on trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool ---
OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
builtins should work (and work the same) whenever long double is double-double.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
--- Comment #17 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, based on the discussion so far, I'd like to take the following steps:
1. In GCC12, I will take a conservative solution to fix this bug, i.e:
mark the load "MEM" as not needing a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104599
Bug ID: 104599
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/deprecated.c has excess errors
after r12-7287-g1b71bc7c8b18bd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is exactly the same as the char case here though, so it is a bit silly
that we miss it :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:09:27PM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> I see a couple of issues in my commit message, which I'll fix up before
> merging...
The uglification changes went in one spot too far and uglified also
the anem of function, posix_memalign should be called like that and
not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104257
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
commit r12-7294-gdf5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
commit r12-7294-gdf5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
Bug ID: 104598
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/ext/undef-bool-1.C has excess
errors after r12-7284-gefbb17db52afd8
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
and then, as I reduced it myself down to the following and compared with the
minimized test, I've finally turned on both of my neurons ;-) and it finally
hit me: "only with -mv850e2v3" didn't mean "not
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Hi Marc, Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 12:48:23PM +, dkm--- via Gcc-rust wrote:
>> > Worker for this Build: debian-ppc64
>>
>> Looks like the ppc64 is requesting a bigger disk :)
>>
>> fatal: sha1 file
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
This uses the now passed SLP node to the vectorizer costing hook
to adjust vector construction costs for the cost of moving an
integer component from a GPR to a vector register when that's
required for building a vector from components. A cruical difference
here is whether the component is loaded
This adjusts the vectorizer costing API to allow passing down the
SLP node the vector stmt is created from.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, I've built
aarch64 and rs6000 cc1 crosses.
OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
2022-02-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/104582
This simplifies the vectorizer cost API by providing overloads
to add_stmt_cost and record_stmt_cost suitable for scalar stmt
and branch stmt costing which do not need information like
a vector type or alignment. It also fixes two mistakes where
costs for versioning tests were recorded as vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Similarly when indirect call is a result of virtual function call, gcc cannot
optimize it, while clang can:
// main.cpp
struct foo
{
virtual int getInt0() const = 0;
virtual int getInt1()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
For
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
we used to produce
:
0: 48 83 ec 28 sub$0x28,%rsp
4: c4 e1 f9 6e d7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286
Artur Bać changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
clang-12 optimizes it to:
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x00401110 <+0>: mov$0x1,%eax
0x00401115 <+5>: ret
Hi Marc, Hi Tom,
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 12:48:23PM +, dkm--- via Gcc-rust wrote:
> > Worker for this Build: debian-ppc64
>
> Looks like the ppc64 is requesting a bigger disk :)
>
> fatal: sha1 file
> '/var/lib/buildbot/workers/wildebeest/gccrust-debian-ppc64/gccrs/.git/index.lock'
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
Bug ID: 104597
Summary: LTO does not inline indirect call
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
> Worker for this Build: debian-ppc64
Hi Mark,
Looks like the ppc64 is requesting a bigger disk :)
fatal: sha1 file
'/var/lib/buildbot/workers/wildebeest/gccrust-debian-ppc64/gccrs/.git/index.lock'
write error. Out of diskspace
Cheers,
Marc
--
Gcc-rust mailing list
Gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104588
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
Sounds so. Changing `char a[32]` to `long a[4]` or `void* a[4]` makes GCC
generate MOVAPS like Clang, but `int a[8]` or `short a[16]` does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104590
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder gccrust-debian-ppc64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/#builders/64/builds/120
Buildbot URL: https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/
Worker for this Build: debian-ppc64
Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
Bug ID: 104596
Summary: Means to add a comment in the assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will cause
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx512bw-2.c scan-assembler-times pmovsxdq 2
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Another testcase is
struct S { double a, b; } s;
void
foo (double a, double b)
{
s.a = a;
s.b = b;
}
which also receives the same costs and compiles vectorized to
unpcklpd %xmm1,%xmm0
movaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Based on stackoverflow answer, a modified example was found with the delegation
to consteval constructor:
```
struct A {
int i = 0;
consteval A() = default;
A(const A&) = delete;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52476=edit
minimal patch
This is a minimal untested patch adjusting APIs to allow for the cost hook to
receive a slp_node in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104592
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
