Ping.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:31:32AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> Ping again.
>
> On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 13:04 +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Ping. Since this fixes bootstrap problem PR110939 for Loongarch I'm
> > pingen this one earlier.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110919
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
For -O1 we have:
_24 = c_16 == 0;
_6 = (int) _24;
_2 = (short int) _24;
_3 = (int) _24;
_5 = e;
_20 = _3 == _5;
_21 = c_16 != 0;
_22 = _20 & _21;
((c_16 == 0) == _5) & (c_16 != 0)
((!b) ? 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #3 from Frank Heckenbach ---
Thanks for the additional info. I still think it would be useful if the message
told me that, rather than you. ;)
- 'nonnull' is a GCC attribute, and quoting it makes it look like it refers to
that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>- There is no "nonnull" in the code.
It is nonnull since it is a reference. References cannot pointer to null
values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>- There is no comparison (to NULL or anything else for that matter) in the
>code.
Actually there is because there is a conversion to bool happening ...
Hi,
This patch enables SImode in FP registers on P7. Instruction "fctiw"
stores its integer output in an FP register. So SImode in FP register
needs be enabled on P7 if we want support "fctiw" on P7.
The test case is in the second patch which implements 32bit inline
lrint.
Compared to the
Hi,
This patch implements 32bit inline lrint by "fctiw". It depends on
the patch1 to do SImode move from FP registers on P7.
Compared to last version, the main change is to add tests for "lrintf"
and adjust the count of corresponding instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111281
Bug ID: 111281
Summary: unhelpful warning output ('nonnull' argument 'v'
compared to NULL)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
Thorsten Otto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ad...@tho-otto.de
--- Comment #2 from
This patch adds a combined pattern for combining vfsqrt.v and vcond_mask.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/autovec-opt.md (*cond_):
Add sqrt + vcond_mask combine pattern.
* config/riscv/autovec.md (2):
Change define_expand to define_insn_and_split.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96703
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm for
```
#define cst 0x1234
bool f(int x, int y)
{
return x > y && y == cst;
}
bool f0(int x, int y)
{
return x > cst && y == cst;
}
```
currently for GCC on aarch64:
```
f:
cmp w0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The pattern:
> /* X - Y < X is the same as Y > 0 when there is no overflow.
>For equality, this is also true with wrapping overflow. */
> (for op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The pattern:
/* X - Y < X is the same as Y > 0 when there is no overflow.
For equality, this is also true with wrapping overflow. */
(for op (simple_comparison)
(simplify
(op:c @0 (minus@2 @0 @1))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
wait that is for unsigned types and we don't have an unsigned type here ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96702
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The comment says:
/* To detect overflow in unsigned A - B, A < B is simpler than A - B > A.
However, the detection logic for SUB_OVERFLOW in tree-ssa-math-opts.cc
expects the long form, so we restrict
Hi,
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Integer expression "(X - N * M) / N" can be optimized to "X / N - M" with
>> the below conditions:
>> 1. There is no wrap/overflow/underflow.
>>wrap/overflow/underflow breaks the arithmetic operation.
>> 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aceceb1e2d6e86ce183c8cc448750fa03b6f79e
commit r14-3644-g1aceceb1e2d6e86ce183c8cc448750fa03b6f79e
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Mon
gcc/ChangeLog:
* ada/Makefile.rtl: Add LoongArch support.
* ada/libgnarl/s-linux__loongarch.ads: New.
* ada/libgnat/system-linux-loongarch.ads: New.
* config/loongarch/loongarch.h: mark normalized options
passed from driver to gnat1 as explicit for
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:52:16PM +, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> A small nit above: I'd suggest using += instead of := $(XXX) to make things
> clearer.
Ok, will fix in v2.
Pushed to r14-3642.
The description information was modified and XLEN was changed to GRLEN.
Thanks!:-)
在 2023/9/2 下午4:09, WANG Xuerui 写道:
On 9/2/23 14:24, Lulu Cheng wrote:
The patch refers to the submission of RISCV
7bbce9b50302959286381d9177818642bceaf301.
gcc/ChangeLog:
*
pushed to r14-3643.
在 2023/9/2 下午3:02, Guo Jie 写道:
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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
Adding some more simple bit_and/bit_ior patterns.
How often these show up, I have no idea.
This was tested on top of
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629174.html .
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe during final_value_replacement_loop we should create a new BB for the
COND_EXPR instead of creating GIMPLE_COND ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:03 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:18 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:20:17PM +0800, Hongyu Wang via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >> > From:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56003
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:27 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 12:36 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 5:38 PM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:10 AM Hongyu Wang
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uros Bizjak via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
This adds `~MAX(~X, Y)` and `~MIN(~X, Y)` patterns
that are like the `~(~a & b)` and `~(~a | b)` patterns
and allows to reduce the number of ~ by 1.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
PR tree-optimization/96694
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd
From: Tsukasa OI
Large constant cons and/or alt will trigger ICEs building GCC target
libraries (libgomp and libatomic) when the 'Zicond' extension is enabled.
For instance, zicond-ice-2.c (new test case in this commit) will cause
an ICE when SOME_NUMBER is 0x1000 or larger. While opposite
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
The value of .CLZ (0) is undefined then. I belive your analysis is correct in
that both 63 - _35 might overflow and that dom3 (thus ranger) mis-computes
the range for _35. I wonder why we don't elide _36 ? _31 : 1 with that info
(possibly no range-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Bug ID: 111280
Summary: CLZ(0) generated when CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is
false
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
sjlj-exceptions is very much not tested as much as the others.
Snapshot gcc-14-20230903 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/14-20230903/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 14 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111279
Bug ID: 111279
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault with m68k,SJLJ and -malign-int
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95034
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||patch
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
Like the pattern already there for `(x | y) & x`,
this adds a simple pattern to optimize `(x | y) & (x & z)`
to just `x & z`.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86-64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/103536
* match.pd (`(x | y) & (x & z)`,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55836=edit
reduced.i
Clang seems to fail to build this reduced one with -O0 too, although -O1/-Og
are ok there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82738
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
10/11/12/13/14 all seem to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111278
Bug ID: 111278
Summary: error: call to ‘...’ declared with attribute error:
code path is reachable with -Og, but not -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
A passing build has been detected on builder gccrust-rawhide-x86_64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/132/builds/1383
Build state: build successful
Revision: 699f5257192ce8d9a856f4ee2779887aae6e92e9
Worker: bb3
Build
Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
>> +# this regex matches the first line of the "end" in the initial commit
>> message
>> +FIRST_LINE_OF_END_RE = re.compile('(?i)^(signed-off-by|co-authored-by|#): ')
>
> The current code only requires an initial "#", rather than an initial "#: ".
> Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111277
Bug ID: 111277
Summary: braced-init-list allowed in a template-argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57905
Jan Schultke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janschultke at googlemail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
We currently have a pattern for handling `(C >> X) & D == 0`
but if C is 1 and D is 1, the `& 1` might have been removed.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/105832
* match.pd (`(1 >> X) != 0`): New pattern
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/105832
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Preliminary patch:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/write.c b/libgfortran/io/write.c
index 5d47a6d25f7..aafbd96b65a 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/write.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/write.c
@@ -1784,8 +1784,6 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
This improves rewrite_to_defined_overflow slightly if we already
have an unsigned type. The only place where this seems to show up
is ifcombine. It removes one extra statement which gets added and
then later on removed.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Hi,
I was about to ping the attached patch, and realised it bordered on obvious, so
I pushed it directly.
FX
> Le 19 août 2023 à 22:40, FX Coudert a écrit :
>
> Bordering on obvious, tested on darwin where the test case fails before (and
> now passes).
>
> OK to commit?
> FX
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont ---
This is because you are facing the PR65762 issue. I just attached a path
proposal to it that you need to apply too to be able to run your test. You'll
be even able to simply use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65762
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 55834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55834=edit
Patch proposal
Here is a proposal that I'll submit on libstdc++ mailing list once PR83077 is
fixed. Note that in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111273
--- Comment #2 from J Grossman ---
@Jonathan whether it's a warning or an error, it's incorrect. I'm filling a 1
element array with 1 element and it's saying it's out of bounds. That's a bug.
I would like to use -Warray-bounds to catch coding
Starting with gcc-12, gcd needs a D compiler to bootstrap, but gcc-11
does not allow to build the necessary runtime on all platforms (Cygwin
for instance). How is the prospective bootstrap sequence on such
platforms?
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111043
Zhendong Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I suspect this is basically the same issue as PR 67628.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55833=edit
Patch which I am testing
> Am 03.09.2023 um 03:23 schrieb Jeff Law via Gcc :
>
>
>
>> 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
66 matches
Mail list logo
