https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
Jason Liam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/apple/sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113186
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So for the C testcase, we don't need to create a new pattern, just extend
gimple_bitwise_inverted_equal_p to catch `a == b` and `a ^ b` are inverted
equals like we already do for `a == b` and `a != b`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113072
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Looks like bool sometimes produces != or ^ :)
> ```
> bool foo(bool a, int b)
> {
> bool b1 = b == 1;
> bool b2 = !b1;
> bool c = (a ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug,
> so IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
>
> Maybe my memory is flawed though.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43644
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79e1b23b91477b29deccf2cae92a7e8dd816c54a
commit r14-6874-g79e1b23b91477b29deccf2cae92a7e8dd816c54a
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113186
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for `~a != b` (for boolean size) we should just convert that into: `a ==
b` .
And then we would have the form for both C++ and C at -O1 in forwprop1 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113186
Bug ID: 113186
Summary: [13/14 Regression] `(a^c) & (a^!c)` is not optimized
to 0 for bool
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
--- Comment #7 from Tommy Murphy ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #3)
> The Linux and ELF multilibs are different: for Linux we assumed ISA
> compatibility was up to the distro, so multilib just handles the ABI side of
> things. That said,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug,
> so IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
Maybe I should have been explicit: that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86440
--- Comment #4 from Yohei Kojima ---
Also, -Wignored-qualifiers messages disappeared with g++ compiling b.c.
Probably it is a bug caused by the same reason as this bug.
$ g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -Wignored-qualifiers b.c
b.c: In function 'void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86440
Yohei Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.koj.eel at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
19 matches
Mail list logo
