https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18af26fc375398f0a7cd7bae5aabebd447f8c899
commit r13-4737-g18af26fc375398f0a7cd7bae5aabebd447f8c899
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108139
Bug ID: 108139
Summary: wrong code with "-O1 -ftree-vrp" on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #15)
> My script shows that this commit cause testcase fail following:
> (It is still running and you might get a email from gcc-regression
> afterwards)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 12 looks faster than GCC 8 even:
Time variable usr sys wall
GGC
phase setup: 0.00 ( 0%) 0.01 ( 25%) 0.02 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138
--- Comment #1 from Peter Hurley ---
Created attachment 54108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54108=edit
testcase header file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138
Bug ID: 108138
Summary: g++ 9+ takes 7-10x longer compiling constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:46:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > Since function useless_type_conversion_p considers two float types are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108090
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102104
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108090
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e79d51963378b10ab90544a7d8eeb6266e9a57f6
commit r13-4734-ge79d51963378b10ab90544a7d8eeb6266e9a57f6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102104
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e79d51963378b10ab90544a7d8eeb6266e9a57f6
commit r13-4734-ge79d51963378b10ab90544a7d8eeb6266e9a57f6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107612
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
I did a little more poking - some of the missing symbols are in
m2/gm2-libs-boot/libgm2.a
adding that to the failing link line results in some more missing symbols,
these look mainly like wrappers around
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108106
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54104|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96172
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for aarch64 GCC produces decent code already (since GCC 9):
f1(unsigned int):
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
ubfxx0, x0, 16, 3
ret
But the gimple level is missed ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137
--- Comment #2 from ucko at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
Thanks for looking into this report promptly, and sorry for getting the
component wrong; I wasn't sure what would be the best fit here. Also, please
note that the reported line number is the
On 12/10/22 10:54, Iain Sandoe wrote:
From: Andrew Pinski
This is Andrew Pinski's patch, I just did testing, adjusted the test case and
provided the Changelog.
tested on x86-64-Darwin21,
OK for trunk?
Iain
OK.
--- >8 ---
The PR reports that using integer_zero_node triggers a warning for
On 12/15/22 11:15, Patrick Palka wrote:
There's a curious corner case with variadic member using-decls: the
terminal name can also contain a parameter pack, and only through naming
a conversion function, e.g.
using A::operator Ts...;
We currently only handle parameter packs appearing in the
Snapshot gcc-10-20221215 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20221215/
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
On 12/15/22 14:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/12/22 12:20, Patrick Palka wrote:
When instantiating a constrained hidden template friend, we need to
substitute into its constraints for sake of declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108116
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108106
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Comment on attachment 54104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54104
A patch
I'm confirming the checking to work for the case reported;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Hi Martin,
On 12/15/22 21:50, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/14/22 16:14, Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha wrote:
[...]
int
main(void)
{
char buf[BUFSIZ];
size_t len;
buf[0] = '\0'; // There’s no ’cpy’ function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE:|[12/13 Regression] ICE:
On 12/15/22 13:00, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Hi Jason,
Jason Merrill writes:
On 12/10/22 08:13, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
If the mangler is relied on, functions with extern "C" on them emit multiple
definitions of the same name.
But doing it here interferes with lazy mangling. How about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108131
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Possibly caused by the fix for pr103505 (commit r12-5779).
Sorry, I just saw that I only answered Jakub and Tobias directly instead of
CCing the List,
so I will just forward my answer to Tobias to avoid wasting anyones time.
Original Message
Subject: Re: GOMP: OMP 5.1: simd construct for non-pointer random access
iterators
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Backporting the second patch r13-1018-ge8ed26c2ac38ab from PR105852 seems to
fix the regression on the 12 branch at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68849
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107188
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:147e276b580b674a46bc3b9c461ae7837fd48aba
commit r13-4731-g147e276b580b674a46bc3b9c461ae7837fd48aba
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100295
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107579
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100295
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18499b9f848707aee42d810e99ac0a4c9788433c
commit r13-4730-g18499b9f848707aee42d810e99ac0a4c9788433c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107579
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18499b9f848707aee42d810e99ac0a4c9788433c
commit r13-4730-g18499b9f848707aee42d810e99ac0a4c9788433c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105518
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105518
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be124477b38a71ba8ba0b24d859ae764bb44a4eb
commit r13-4729-gbe124477b38a71ba8ba0b24d859ae764bb44a4eb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
Hi,
On 15.12.22 21:31, Grosse-Bley, Paul Leonard wrote:
I just ran into the issue that `#pragma omp simd` does not work on C++ iterator
loops (godbolt).
From going through the specifications I understand that this restriction was
part of 4.5 and 5.0, but was dropped with 5.1.
I assume that
On 12/14/22 16:14, Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha wrote:
[CC += groff]
Hi Andrew,
On 12/14/22 23:57, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:46 PM Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha
wrote:
Hi,
I was rewriting the strncat(3) manual page, and when I tried to
compile the
example
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:31:50PM +0100, Grosse-Bley, Paul Leonard wrote:
>
> Hi together,
>
> I just ran into the issue that `#pragma omp simd` does not work on C++
> iterator loops (godbolt).
> >From going through the specifications I understand that this restriction was
> >part of 4.5 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108104
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108104
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38304846d18d6bb14b0fd6c627c5c6d43a814d01
commit r13-4728-g38304846d18d6bb14b0fd6c627c5c6d43a814d01
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
Hi together,
I just ran into the issue that `#pragma omp simd` does not work on C++ iterator
loops (godbolt).
>From going through the specifications I understand that this restriction was
>part of 4.5 and 5.0, but was dropped with 5.1.
As I couldn't find this change in the table of 5.1 (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137
Bug ID: 108137
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: segfault during GIMPLE pass:
warn-printf
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi Arsen,
> On 15 Dec 2022, at 18:00, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> Jason Merrill writes:
>
>> On 12/10/22 08:13, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>>> If the mangler is relied on, functions with extern "C" on them emit multiple
>>> definitions of the same name.
>>
>> But doing it here
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 07:56:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:49:27PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Certainly. But different types with the same mode having different
> > precision is not so very reasonable, and will likely cause other
> > problems as well.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108111
--- Comment #3 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Thanks Jonathan for the suggestion.
The lexer code still need some refactor because the Source type (2nd template
argument to buffered_queue) is expected to have a next() method and is used
with both a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108111
--- Comment #3 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Thanks Jonathan for the suggestion.
The lexer code still need some refactor because the Source type (2nd template
argument to buffered_queue) is expected to have a next() method and is used
with both a
Hi,
On 15.12.22 20:42, Tobias Burnus wrote:
If the libgomp plugin doesn't request special
'host_to_dev_cpy'/'dev_to_host_cpy' for 'gomp_target_rev', then standard
'gomp_copy_host2dev'/'gomp_copy_dev2host' are used, which use
'gomp_device_copy', which expects the device to be locked. (As can be
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, 20:04 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, 19:50 U.Mutlu, wrote:
>
>> Jakub Jelinek wrote on 12/15/22 17:59:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:53:19PM +0100, U.Mutlu wrote:
>> >> On this page all ISO C++ standards versions of gcc/g++ are listed,
>> except C++03:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108136
Bug ID: 108136
Summary: Modula2 meets cppcheck
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, 19:50 U.Mutlu, wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote on 12/15/22 17:59:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:53:19PM +0100, U.Mutlu wrote:
> >> On this page all ISO C++ standards versions of gcc/g++ are listed,
> except C++03:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html
> >>
> >>
Jakub Jelinek wrote on 12/15/22 17:59:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:53:19PM +0100, U.Mutlu wrote:
On this page all ISO C++ standards versions of gcc/g++ are listed, except C++03:
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html
This looks much like an error/omission b/c g++ has the options
Hi,
I have not fully tried to understand it, yet.
(A) Regarding the issue of stalling, see als Andrew's patch and the
discussion about it in
"[PATCH] libgomp: fix hang on fatal error",
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603616.html
and in particular Jakub's two replies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
--- Comment #7 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 2:33 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
>
> There is a patch in PR 57067 even which you could try to port to a newer
> compiler version and fix up.
Okay, will check that patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108132 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REOPENED
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 12/12/22 12:20, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > When instantiating a constrained hidden template friend, we need to
> > > substitute into its constraints for sake of declaration matching.
> >
> > Hmm, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-15
Ever
The following patch solves a spill problem for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
There are still redundant moves which should be removed to solve PR.
I'll continue my work on this in Jan.
commit 12abd5a7d13209f79664ea603b3f3517f71b8c4f
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Bug ID: 108135
Summary: Modula2 meets clang
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
Assignee:
Break the _FORTIFY_SOURCE-specific builtins out into a separate
subsection from Object Size Checking built-ins and mention
_FORTIFY_SOURCE in there so that the link between the object size
checking builtins, the helper builtins (e.g. __builtin___memcpy_chk) and
_FORTIFY_SOURCE is clearer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12abd5a7d13209f79664ea603b3f3517f71b8c4f
commit r13-4727-g12abd5a7d13209f79664ea603b3f3517f71b8c4f
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/12/22 12:20, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > When instantiating a constrained hidden template friend, we need to
> > substitute into its constraints for sake of declaration matching.
>
> Hmm, we shouldn't need to do declaration matching when there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
Bug ID: 108134
Summary: A description bug for Extended Asm document
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:49:27PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 06:28:19PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > By investigating the exposed NaN failures, I found it's due to that it
> > > wants
> > > to convert
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 06:28:19PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > By investigating the exposed NaN failures, I found it's due to that it wants
> > to convert _Float128 type constant to long double type constant, it goes
> > through function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
*** Bug 108117 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #15 from
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> By investigating the exposed NaN failures, I found it's due to that it wants
> to convert _Float128 type constant to long double type constant, it goes
> through function real_convert which clears the signalling bit in the context
> of
Hi Tom!
First "a bit" of context; skip to "the proposed patch" if you'd like to
see just that.
On 2022-02-01T19:31:27+0100, Tom de Vries via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On a GT 1030, with driver version 470.94 and -mptx=3.1 I run into:
> ...
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108133
Bug ID: 108133
Summary: Failure to merge conditional bit clears
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hi Jason,
Jason Merrill writes:
> On 12/10/22 08:13, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> If the mangler is relied on, functions with extern "C" on them emit multiple
>> definitions of the same name.
>
> But doing it here interferes with lazy mangling. How about appending the
> suffix into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #12)
> Shouldn't there be another bug for the sched1 issue specifically? In absence
> of abnormal control flow, extending lifetimes of pseudos across calls is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107065
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b775b4c48a3cc4ef5c50e56144aea02da2e9cc6
commit r13-4726-g8b775b4c48a3cc4ef5c50e56144aea02da2e9cc6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Monakov ---
Shouldn't there be another bug for the sched1 issue specifically? In absence of
abnormal control flow, extending lifetimes of pseudos across calls is still
likely to be a pessimization.
What is going on out there these days? I've added more addresses from
the GCC mailing list to my killfile in the last week than in the
previous two years combined.
Yeesh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From the duplicated bug: "In this case the RTL scheduler pass generates broken
code due to the missing control flow info."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From the duplicated bug: "In this case the RTL scheduler pass generates broken
code due to the missing control flow info."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 54103 [details]
> gcc13-pr106751.patch
>
> This seems to work on the testcase.
looks reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108106
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 54104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54104=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:46:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Since function useless_type_conversion_p considers two float types are
> > compatible
> > if they have the same mode, so it doesn't require the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108129
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> match.pd has multi-pattern matcher 'nop_atomic_bit_test_and_p'.
>
> It expands to ~38 KLOC in gimple-match.cc and ~350 KB in the compiled binary.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108132
--- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As we checked the assembly and the IR, the wrong transformation is something
like the following at source code level: (inside function "main")
from :
a=f(a);
b=true;
to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7283380a5829150cc820ab3b25c4d91cad372eec
commit r13-4724-g7283380a5829150cc820ab3b25c4d91cad372eec
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:20 PM Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Honza requested this after reviewing the patch that taught IPA-SRA
> > > that REFERENCE_TYPEs are always non-NULL that the pass also handles
> > > the first parameters of methods, this pointers, in
1 - 100 of 269 matches
Mail list logo
