When recording store for RTL dead store elimination, check if the source
register is set only once to a constant. If yes, record the constant
as the store source. It eliminates unrolled zero stores after memset 0
in a loop where a vector register is used as the zero store source.
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 53011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53011=edit
Reduced fix on top of 93416de0cb; a fragmental revert
The attached patch, applied to 93416de0cb, re-introduces
/gaius/opt/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/m2/m2pim
-fplugin=m2rte -I/home/gaius/opt/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/m2/m2pim -o
/tmp/cc8BoL3d.s hello.mod
GNU Modula-2 1.9.5 (20220520)
grafted onto GCC 13.0.0
Copyright (C) 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv2: GNU GPL versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is jump threading due to the fsanitize=shift option.
With the irq argument to work changed to int from unsigned, the work function
is inlined.
And then the check:
if (irq < 0 || irq >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The Linux kernel has encountered at least two of these (seen as specifically
"array subscript 32", though the root cause may be causing many others:
../drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mac.c:373:22: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Bug ID: 105679
Summary: erroneous -Warray-bounds warning with sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Excerpts from Paul E Murphy's message of May 21, 2022 12:21 am:
>
>
> On 5/20/22 12:15 AM, Nicholas Piggin via Gcc wrote:
>> This takes the arm64 file and adjusts it for powerpc. Feature
>> descriptions are vaguely handwaved by me.
>> ---
>>
>> Anybody care to expand on or correct the meaning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105556
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105556
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83d78585078d6918853fbe0f74a3a78e88e3e32
commit r12-8406-gc83d78585078d6918853fbe0f74a3a78e88e3e32
Author: Peter Bergner
Snapshot gcc-11-20220520 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220520/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Thank you for the feedback Richard. I attached a patch that saves/restores
counts if the epilog doesn't use a scalar loop.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 12:34 AM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld
Cc: Jan Hubicka ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re:
Hello,
On Fri, May 20 2022, Erick Ochoa via Gcc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a pass that looks into the estimated values during ipa-cp
> and stores them for a later analyses/pass. I would like to store the real
> arguments' estimates in a cgraph_edge::call_stmt or somewhere else that
> makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Additional observation: the diff is local to functions f5 and f17 (in
g++.dg/opt/pr94589-2.C), i.e. "reduced" to (for reference only):
A bool f5 (double i, double j) { auto c = i <=> j; return c >= 0;
The problem is fixed now.
Thanks.
Should i push again with the first change log
في الجمعة، ٢٠ مايو، ٢٠٢٢ ٩:٢٠ م Mohamed Atef
كتب:
> I cloned he repo again but there is a problem here.
> This line is not in the previous repo.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105669
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105674
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
--- Comment #2 from Francisco ---
just tried
```bash
g++ -std=gnu++2b -static-libstdc++ cpp_file.cpp
```
but same result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is missing from the linker script for versioning.
Using -static-libstdc++ should be a workaround.
I cloned he repo again but there is a problem here.
This line is not in the previous repo.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libgomp/plugin/Makefrag.am#L29
في الجمعة، ٢٠ مايو، ٢٠٢٢ ٥:٥٨ م Mohamed Atef
كتب:
> I am really sorry.
>
> في الجمعة، ٢٠ مايو، ٢٠٢٢ ٥:٥٨ م Mohamed Atef
> كتب:
On 20 May 2022 16:39:20 CEST, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > 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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
Bug ID: 105678
Summary: Undefined reference to stacktrace standard library
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
This patch introduces -multiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
and mapped to useful options by driver self-specs.
I realize -m is reserved for machine-specific flags, which this option
sort-of isn't, but its intended use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:47 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> hello,
>>
>> this file is part-01 of the patch set for the gm2 review.
Hi Richard,
> I think you did a better job last time splitting the patches.
ah many apologies I should have annotated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi Uros,
Many thanks for the review. As requested here is a revised version of the
patch that's slightly more aggressive in its clean-ups (duplicating 6 lines
of code allowed me to eliminate 9 lines of code), but most significantly
also includes support for the andn for TARGET_BMI, and allows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
--- Comment #2 from Ruslan Mkoyan ---
Created attachment 53009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53009=edit
Input file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105677
Bug ID: 105677
Summary: Calling strlen on a string constant is optimized out,
but calling wcslen on a string constant is not
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53008=edit
A patch for pr104441-1a.c
Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm that an Intel Cascade Lake Xeon, using -Ofast -flto
-march=native, 538.imagick_r produced by GCC 12.1 is almost 20% slower
than the benchmark built with GCC 11.2 and the same options (on Zen2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed with GCC 12.1 numbers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105676
Bug ID: 105676
Summary: Bogus `-Wsuggest-attribute=pure` on function marked
`__attribute__((const))`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:21:43AM -0500, Paul E Murphy wrote:
> >+PPC_FEATURE_HAS_ALTIVEC
> >+Vector (aka Altivec, VSX) facility is available.
>
> I think "(aka Altivec, VSX)" might be more accurately stated as "(aka
> Altivec)"?
"Also known as AltiVec or VMX", yes.
>
On 5/20/22 12:15 AM, Nicholas Piggin via Gcc wrote:
> +PPC_FEATURE_HAS_ALTIVEC
> +Vector (aka Altivec, VSX) facility is available.
Slight typo. s/VSX/VMX/
Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Bug ID: 105675
Summary: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
I am really sorry.
في الجمعة، ٢٠ مايو، ٢٠٢٢ ٥:٥٨ م Mohamed Atef
كتب:
> In fact that's why i downloaded the repo again i forget to modify the
> copyright and when i tried to repush but i got an error As my branch is not
> updated i wanted delete the branch and create new one and push again.
> If
In fact that's why i downloaded the repo again i forget to modify the
copyright and when i tried to repush but i got an error As my branch is not
updated i wanted delete the branch and create new one and push again.
If you have the authority to remove the last batch please do.
في الجمعة، ٢٠ مايو،
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105674
Bug ID: 105674
Summary: Wrong bounds for assumed rank pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:53:36AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote:
> I use 1.15.1.
> This is the link to the line I mentioned.
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libgomp/plugin/Makefrag.am#L29
You shouldn't be running autoreconf, just automake to regenerate
Makefile.in, and when I run it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #28 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #27)
> We're not using the backward threader to replace DOM's threader yet. I've
> got a TODO to push on Aldy's patch, but haven't been able to get to it over
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105673
Bug ID: 105673
Summary: _M_futex_wait_until_steady() always falls back to old
syscall with FUTEX_WAIT operation even after
successful FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We're not using the backward threader to replace DOM's threader yet. I've got
a TODO to push on Aldy's patch, but haven't been able to get to it over the
last couple weeks. It's an, umm, busy time for
On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 15:31, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> > From: Jonathan Wakely
> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:03:40 +0200
>
> > > Ok to commit (without renaming)?
> >
> > I'm OK with the timeout factor, but we could also solve it differently
> > so that it doesn't take nearly 5 minutes, as in
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 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",
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:03:40 +0200
> > Ok to commit (without renaming)?
>
> I'm OK with the timeout factor, but we could also solve it differently
> so that it doesn't take nearly 5 minutes, as in the attached patch.
> The testDiscreteDist function can be
On 5/20/22 12:15 AM, Nicholas Piggin via Gcc wrote:
This takes the arm64 file and adjusts it for powerpc. Feature
descriptions are vaguely handwaved by me.
---
Anybody care to expand on or correct the meaning of these entries or
bikeshed the wording of the intro? Many of them are no longer
On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 14:45 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 2:43 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 08:32 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > As of GCC 11 onwards we have required a C++11 compiler, such as
> > > GCC
> > > 4.8
> > > or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> :: note: tuple and std::tuple are not the same type
And just to be clear, it was very intentional that this suggestion *doesn't*
show the template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2)
> And drop the "non-scalar type" part - does it add anything meaningful to the
> diagnostic?
Good point. I assume the intention of that wording is to say "I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Could we add a note for ill-formed conversions between two types that have
> the same name, to make it more obvious that they're defined in different
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50880|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-18 00:00:00 |2022-5-20
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another option suggested by Barry Revzin is to line up the types, so that the
type's name is in the same column so the different nested-name-qualifier is
more obvious:
vt.C:276:15: error: conversion from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
Bug ID: 105672
Summary: Print note when unable to convert between types with
the same name but different scopes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105659
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #1)
> If I recall the conversation correctly, either the CPU-specific D language
> hooks should be moved to macros - equivalent to TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS and
> others.
Excerpts from Marc Aurèle La France's message of Mai 20, 2022 6:56 am:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Marc Aurèle La France wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Marc Aurèle La France's message of Mai 17, 2022 5:31 pm:
On Tue, 17 May 2022, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105654
Tobias Brunner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobias at strongswan dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Hi,
I'm working on a pass that looks into the estimated values during ipa-cp
and stores them for a later analyses/pass. I would like to store the real
arguments' estimates in a cgraph_edge::call_stmt or somewhere else that
makes similar sense. (Note, this is different from the formal parameters'
On May 11, 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ready to be installed?
Hmm... I don't like that --disable-fixincludes would still configure,
build and even install fixincludes. This would be surprising, given
that the semantics of disabling a component is to not even configure it.
How about leaving
A restored build has been detected on builder gccrust-debian-ppc64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/3/builds/120
Build state: build successful
Revision: 64a41cce91795561c2b007cb25ad4e43b53d126a
Worker: debian-ppc64
Hello,
for completeness here is v2 of the patch set:
(m2pp.c has been renamed m2pp.cc and a missing dependency added to
m2rte).
6. gcc/m2/Make-lang.in
==
-
New file: gcc/m2/Make-lang.in
-
#
On May 18, 2022, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'm open to suggestions for a better term!
How about inference?
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation
Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of May 20, 2022 7:21 pm:
> Nicholas Piggin via Libc-alpha writes:
>> This takes the arm64 file and adjusts it for powerpc. Feature
>> descriptions are vaguely handwaved by me.
>> ---
>
> Thanks for attempting to document this.
It was mainly copy and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I'm not sure about the state of this bug - the issue reproduces on the GCC
> 10 branch with checking enabled and -O[2s] -fdisable-tree-fre4
>
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:17 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > 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,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
>
> --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:47 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> this file is part-01 of the patch set for the gm2 review.
I think you did a better job last time splitting the patches. This
one contains the
driver changes for which I have a hard time remembering the reason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #13)
> FWIW, we started ICEing somewhere between
> r9-856-g7ce4ce10cd0a6f332dd473bd4726f1a1adefda0e and
> r9-870-ge062dc808950801a089ee6acd969393da2f39406, the build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> On Thu, 19 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I wonder if you can help and "bisect" the actual pattern that is now
> enabled for GENERIC folding?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #8 from Hans de Jong ---
The reduced testcase of comment #1 also fails on optimization levels O1 and Os.
I added the compiler versions which I have seen break on godbolt.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671
--- Comment #1 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
It's in the full verbose build log, but failed to include it here. These are
the contents of the files:
$ cat user-config.jam
using gcc : : g++ : "-flto" ;
$ cat test.cpp
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apart from the bogus warnings caused by PR 61596, I think only the std::latch
problem remains. Comment 11 has a suggestion for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671
Bug ID: 105671
Summary: Unexplained "undefined reference" error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
I use 1.15.1.
This is the link to the line I mentioned.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libgomp/plugin/Makefrag.am#L29
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote:
> >I downloaded the last version of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Bug ID: 105670
Summary: [x86] suboptimal code for branch over two bools
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote:
>I downloaded the last version of the repo, but when I try to
> autoreconf
> in libgomp/
> i get this error "plugin/Makefrag.am:29: error: libgomp_la_LIBADD must be
> set with '=' before using '+='"
> line 29 in
Hello,
I downloaded the last version of the repo, but when I try to
autoreconf
in libgomp/
i get this error "plugin/Makefrag.am:29: error: libgomp_la_LIBADD must be
set with '=' before using '+='"
line 29 in libgomp/plugin/Makefrag.am has
"libgomp_la_LIBADD += $(DL_LIBS)"
I removed this line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> Guess we need to extend backend hook to handle different input and output
> modes.
Yes, alternatively as said, some special cases could be directly handled.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12/13 Regression] |[9/10/11/12/13 Regression]
On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 10:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 03:20, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, how about shortening those test-suite file-paths?
> > They're path sort-of overlong for any git (and ChangeLog)
> > commit-line limit. 1/2 :-)
>
> Yes,
Nicholas Piggin via Libc-alpha writes:
> This takes the arm64 file and adjusts it for powerpc. Feature
> descriptions are vaguely handwaved by me.
> ---
Thanks for attempting to document this.
> Anybody care to expand on or correct the meaning of these entries or
> bikeshed the wording of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Guess we need to extend backend hook to handle different input and output
modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105513
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> The second sequence is 3 uops vs 1/2 (issued/executed) uops in first, and on
> Haswell and Skylake it ties up port 5 for two cycles.
>
> Unclear if you're
On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 03:20, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Also, how about shortening those test-suite file-paths?
> They're path sort-of overlong for any git (and ChangeLog)
> commit-line limit. 1/2 :-)
Yes, they're silly. I like what libc++ does, i.e. name the testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
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=105513
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
The second sequence is 3 uops vs 1/2 (issued/executed) uops in first, and on
Haswell and Skylake it ties up port 5 for two cycles.
Unclear if you're microbenchmarking latency or throughput, but in any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105513
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also notice a intersting case impacted by a separate m alternatvie.
typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v2di
foo (v2di a)
{
a[1] = 1113;
return a;
}
with -O2 gcc generates
foo(long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure about the state of this bug - the issue reproduces on the GCC 10
branch with checking enabled and -O[2s] -fdisable-tree-fre4
-fno-strict-overflow
It might be that using the backward threader
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> 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 overlaps with a term
> used in language standards.
IMO it's very confusing, see the subject: "Add divide by zero side effect".
The only side effect of dividing by zero is (possibly) raising a trap.
--
Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
