https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104007
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new (std::nothrow) S[n] |[12 Regression] new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104007
Bug ID: 104007
Summary: new (std::nothrow) S[n] always calls ~S
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Variable indexing of a __builtin_shufflevector result is broken because
we fail to properly mark the TARGET_EXPR decl as addressable.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
2022-01-13 Richard Biener
PR c/104002
gcc/c-family/
* c-common.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
>
> Sure - I just remember (falsely?) that we finally decided to do it :)
I do not recall this, but I may have forgotten :))
> If we don't run IPA inline we don't figure we failed to
>
> Sure - I just remember (falsely?) that we finally decided to do it :)
I do not recall this, but I may have forgotten :))
> If we don't run IPA inline we don't figure we failed to inline the
> always_inline either ;) And IPA inline can expose more indirect
> alywas-inlines we only discover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97909
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
This functionality was added with fc4076752067fb400b43adbd629081df658da246
Commentary here
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583216.html
All one needs is an active ranger via the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> Really strange. If kinds.h were missing completely at that point, I'd
> expect gcc message to that effect, that's why I suspected the header
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52176|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #12)
> > Yeah, and since we inline all always inline and also flatten during
> > early inline the IPA inliner should really do nothing.
>
> OK, can_inline_edge_p will do
This patch actually addresses a few PRs.
The root PR was 97909. Ranger context functionality was added to
fold_const back in early November
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583216.html)
The other 2 PRs mentioned (83072 and 83073) partially worked after this,
but
A quick addition to range ops for
LHS = OP1 >> OP2
if OP1 and OP2 are both >= 0, then we can register the relation LHS
<= OP1 and all the expected good things happen.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions.
OK for trunk?
Andrew
From
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Yeah, and since we inline all always inline and also flatten during
> early inline the IPA inliner should really do nothing.
OK, can_inline_edge_p will do that but we will still walk the
On 05/01/2022 17:07, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I don't believe 64KB will be anything like enough for any real HPC
application. Is it really worth optimizing for this case?
Anyway, I'm working on an implementation using mmap instead of malloc
for pinned allocations. I figure that will simplify the
On 13/01/2022 12:36, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
This time to the list too (sorry for double email)
Hi,
The original patch '[vect] Re-analyze all modes for epilogues', skipped modes
that should not be skipped since it used the vector mode provided
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When writing the PR98737 fix, I've handled just the case where people
> use __atomic_op_fetch (p, x, y) etc.
> But some people actually use the other builtins, like
> __atomic_fetch_op (p, x, y) op x.
> The following patch canonicalizes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
>
> --- Comment #10 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > And I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 52176
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52176=edit
> gcc12-pr104006.patch
The patch lists gcc as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
Probably. rangers nonnull processing also invokes infer_nonnull_range () on
the statement, so should also be picking it up.
The latter test case is really about recomputation then
x_2 = a_1(D) ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
>
> --- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, guojiufu wrote:
> On 2022-01-03 22:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Normaly, estimate_numbers_of_iterations get/caculate niter first,
> >> and then invokes infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined. While in some case,
> >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> And I'm intentionally not doing this because -Og should still remove
> abstraction during early inlining (for functions marked 'inline'), we
> just don't want to spend the extra compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sorry, only added kinds.inc dependencies and not kinds.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-13
Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 1/12/22 02:02, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> We've got -Wformat-diag for some time and I think we should start using it
>> in -Werror for GCC bootstrap. The following patch removes last pieces of
>> the warning
>> for rs6000 target.
>>
>> Ready
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:31:54PM +, Hafiz Abid Qadeer wrote:
> + gfc_omp_namelist *n;
> + for (n = *head; n; n = n->next)
Better
for (gfc_omp_namelist *n = *head; n; n = n->next)
as we are in C++ and n isn't used after the loop.
> + /* non-composite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
I'm testing
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
gcc/config/i386/i386.md | 6 +++---
modified gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -10455,7 +10455,7 @@ (define_insn_and_split "*xordi_1_btc"
;; PR
Hi David,
on 2022/1/13 上午11:12, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:56 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch is to clean up some codes with GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE or
>> GET_MODE_NUNITS, which can use known constant instead.
>
> I'll let Segher decide, but often the additional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Bug ID: 104006
Summary: [12 regression] power-ieee128 merge breaks Solaris
build
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> This time to the list too (sorry for double email)
>
> Hi,
>
> The original patch '[vect] Re-analyze all modes for epilogues', skipped modes
> that should not be skipped since it used the vector mode provided by
> autovectorize_vector_modes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's a report of a regression caused by this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2022-January/141127.html
I'll ask for it to be reported to bugzilla.
on 2022/1/13 上午11:56, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> on 2022/1/13 上午11:44, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:38 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> on 2022/1/13 上午11:07, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:56 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #8)
> > You can not disable an IPA pass becasuse then we will mishandle
> > optimize attributes. I think you simply want to set
> >
> > flag_inline_small_functions = 0
>
Hi!
On 2022-01-04T15:12:58+0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This commit r12-6209 now makes the testcases iterate over all devices
> (including the initial/host device).
>
> Hence, with multiple non-host devices and this test, the error had been
> found before ... ;-)
Yay for test cases! :-)
...
On Thu, Jan 13 2022, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 1/13/22 12:14, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > But please make sure all intermediate revs will still build.
>>
>> That's not possible :) I don't it's a good idea mixing .cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> Seems cmp+isel on P9 is sub-optimal.
For this particular test, perhaps. But it is better overall, at least some
years ago. It was benchmarked (with spec), on p9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100280
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> Thanks for the report, now fixed in master branch. Not planning on
> backporting OpenACC 'kernels' decomposition changes to release branches --
> unless
Hi!
On 2021-11-22T16:02:31+0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:49:42PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Then, regarding the user-visible behavior:
>>
>> > +#pragma acc routine /* { dg-error "not immediately followed by a single
>> > function declaration or
Le 12/01/2022 à 21:29, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit :
Dear Fortranners,
the attached patch improves error recovery after an invalid
structure constructor has been detected in a DATA statement.
Testcase by Gerhard.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This should be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> You can not disable an IPA pass becasuse then we will mishandle
> optimize attributes. I think you simply want to set
>
> flag_inline_small_functions = 0
>
> You can not disable an IPA pass becasuse then we will mishandle
> optimize attributes. I think you simply want to set
>
> flag_inline_small_functions = 0
> flag_inline_functions_called_once = 0
Actually I forgot, we have flag_no_inline which makes
tree_inlinable_function_p to return false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> Honza, -Og was supposed to not do so much work, I intended to disable IPA
> inlining but there's no knob for that. I wonder where to best put
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> Honza, -Og was supposed to not do so much work, I intended to disable IPA
> inlining but there's no knob for that. I wonder where to best put such
> guard? I set flag_inline_small_functions to zero for -Og but we still
> run inline_small_functions ().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005
Bug ID: 104005
Summary: Regression on arm+sve with -O2 -fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 1/13/22 12:14, Richard Biener wrote:
> > But please make sure all intermediate revs will still build.
>
> That's not possible :) I don't it's a good idea mixing .cc renaming
> and changes in that files.
I think it is possible,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100280
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jules at gcc dot gnu.org,
On 2022-01-03 22:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi,
Normaly, estimate_numbers_of_iterations get/caculate niter first,
and then invokes infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined. While in some case,
after a few call stacks, estimate_numbers_of_iterations is invoked
On 1/13/22 12:14, Richard Biener wrote:
But please make sure all intermediate revs will still build.
That's not possible :) I don't it's a good idea mixing .cc renaming
and changes in that files.
Martin
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 1/13/22 11:47, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> I've got a patch series that does the renaming. It contains of 2 automatic
> >> scripts ([1] and [2]) that were run as:
>
Updated patch: this version fixes some missed cases of malloc in the
realloc implementation. It also reworks the unused variable workarounds
so that the work better with my reworked pinned memory patches I've not
posted yet.
Andrewlibgomp, nvptx: low-latency memory allocator
This patch adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason we warn is that at -Og we don't optimize away the dead code. In
uninit2 we have:
MEM[(struct _Optional_payload_base *)]._M_engaged = 0;
...
_27 = MEM[(const struct _Optional_payload_base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Hello.
Based on the discussion with release managers, the change is going to happen
after stage4 begins.
Martin
Hello.
Based on the discussion with release managers, the change is going to happen
after stage4 begins.
Martin
On 1/13/22 10:40 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
[...]
Apart from that, I support the patch (I cannot approve it). Note we're
now approaching
stage4 and this is definitelly a stage1 material (opens after GCC
12.1.0 gets released).
Thanks, Martin, I've updated the patch following your suggestions.
On 1/13/22 11:47, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 11 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
I've got a patch series that does the renaming. It contains of 2 automatic
scripts ([1] and [2]) that were run as:
$ gcc-renaming-candidates.py gcc --rename && git commit -a -m 'Rename files.' &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104003
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(define_insn "*xop_pcmov_"
- [(set (match_operand:VI_32 0 "register_operand" "=x")
-(if_then_else:VI_32
- (match_operand:VI_32 3 "register_operand" "x")
- (match_operand:VI_32 1
Hi!
On 2022-01-13T11:55:03+0100, I wrote:
> This has fallen out of (unfinished...) work earlier in the year: pushed
> to master branch commit 4bd8b1e881f0c26a5103cd1919809b3d63b60ef2
> "Document current '-Wuninitialized'/'-Wmaybe-uninitialized' diagnostics
> for OpenACC test cases".
..., and
Hi!
This has fallen out of (unfinished...) work earlier in the year: pushed
to master branch commit 4bd8b1e881f0c26a5103cd1919809b3d63b60ef2
"Document current '-Wuninitialized'/'-Wmaybe-uninitialized' diagnostics
for OpenACC test cases".
Grüße
Thomas
-
Siemens Electronic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 103995, which changed state.
Bug 103995 Summary: [11/12 Regression] conj() ignored with tree loop vectorizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f49f50f756c06f4093358ff77c11152777fff1c
commit r11-9458-g7f49f50f756c06f4093358ff77c11152777fff1c
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101615
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f49f50f756c06f4093358ff77c11152777fff1c
commit r11-9458-g7f49f50f756c06f4093358ff77c11152777fff1c
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102192
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2edbcaed95b8d8cbb05a6af486179db0da6e3245
commit r12-6547-g2edbcaed95b8d8cbb05a6af486179db0da6e3245
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> But still not as good as before, since original version we only need to pack
> data which is produced by vec_cond_expr, but now need to extraly pack mask.
>
>
Also for non-avx512 target, it looks
Pushed to master.
It's very unlikely that somebody is going to backport a revision
that is > 14 months old to a release branch.
contrib/ChangeLog:
* git-backport.py: Simplify the script as pre-auto-ChangeLog era
is 14 months old.
---
contrib/git-backport.py | 39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
>
> --- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Richard
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 11 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've got a patch series that does the renaming. It contains of 2 automatic
> scripts ([1] and [2]) that were run as:
>
> $ gcc-renaming-candidates.py gcc --rename && git commit -a -m 'Rename files.'
> && rename-gcc.py . -vv && git commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
>
> --- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
> with
> @@ -12120,7 +12120,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #10)
> with
> @@ -12120,7 +12120,8 @@ supportable_narrowing_operation (enum tree_code code,
>c1 = VEC_PACK_TRUNC_EXPR;
>if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm thinking out loud here. As vector sizes (or ISAs) change vectorization
strategies could indeed change. Best that I can think of is things like
rounding, where you might need to do operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Bug ID: 104004
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2769
(error: unrecognizable insn)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104002
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Somewhat related to the recently fixed issue. At -O0 we have invalid
_1 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ;
_3 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_1, 64, 0>;
_5 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_3)[i_4(D)];
while with -O update_address_taken is
Hi!
Jakub, I'd still like your comment on the two "should we" questions cited
below.
On 2021-08-24T13:43:38+0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:23 PM Thomas Schwinge
> wrote:
>> On 2021-08-19T22:13:56+0200, I wrote:
>> > On 2021-08-16T10:21:04+0200, Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
with
@@ -12120,7 +12120,8 @@ supportable_narrowing_operation (enum tree_code code,
c1 = VEC_PACK_TRUNC_EXPR;
if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (narrow_vectype)
&& VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104002
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=104003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, avieira at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
>
> avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I think that is what we need to add. We also don't have a good
> representation
> for "packing" of masks.
>
> diff --git
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The following patch avoids emitting a parameter copy statement when inlining
> > if the parameter has empty type. E.g. the gimplifier does something similar
> > (except that it needs to evaluate side-effects if any, which isn't
Hi!
On 2019-08-13T14:37:13-0700, Julian Brown wrote:
> This patch provides a workaround for unreliable operation of asynchronous
> kernels regions on AMD GCN. At present, kernels regions are decomposed
> into a series of parallel regions surrounded by a data region capturing
> the data-movement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Forcing the pattern to not trigger produces the expected
>
> t.c:8:6: missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: iftmp.0_21 =
> x.1_14 > 255 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Hi!
On 2019-05-08T14:51:57+0100, Julian Brown wrote:
> - The "addressable" bit is set during the kernels conversion pass for
>variables that have "create" (alloc) clauses created for them in the
>synthesised outer data region (instead of in the front-end, etc.,
>where it can't be
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following patch avoids emitting a parameter copy statement when inlining
> if the parameter has empty type. E.g. the gimplifier does something similar
> (except that it needs to evaluate side-effects if any, which isn't the case
> here):
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Forcing the pattern to not trigger produces the expected
t.c:8:6: missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: iftmp.0_21 =
x.1_14 > 255 ? iftmp.0_19 : iftmp.0_20;
since condition vectorization
This time to the list too (sorry for double email)
Hi,
The original patch '[vect] Re-analyze all modes for epilogues', skipped
modes that should not be skipped since it used the vector mode provided
by autovectorize_vector_modes to derive the minimum VF required for it.
However, those modes
Hi!
On 2020-11-13T23:22:30+0100, I wrote:
> I've pushed to master branch [...] commit
> e898ce7997733c29dcab9c3c62ca102c7f9fa6eb "Decompose OpenACC 'kernels'
> constructs into parts, a sequence of compute constructs", see attached.
>
> On 2019-02-01T00:59:30+0100, I wrote:
>> There's more work to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100280
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b32c1669aad5459dd053424f9967011348add83
commit r12-6542-g9b32c1669aad5459dd053424f9967011348add83
Author: Thomas Schwinge
On 1/12/22 14:34, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
On 1/11/22 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
I do support the patch, but I would ...
Thanks, Martin, that makes the patch simpler and easier to maintain. Would the
attached version do?
Thanks
Tomas
On 1/7/22 19:33, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
+
Hi!
The changes done to genericize_if_stmt in order to improve
-Wunreachable-code* warning (which Richi didn't actually commit
for GCC 12) are I think fine for normal ifs, but for constexpr if
and consteval if we have two competing warnings.
The problem is that we replace the non-taken clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104003
Bug ID: 104003
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2769
since r12-6488-g820ac79e8448ad6c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
201 - 300 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
