https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
> symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand
> what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Just note pshufb needs SSE3, and it seems reasonable to define a SSE3
> broadcast pattern which generates pxor + pshufb.
w/ -msse4 gcc generates ideal instructions
Hi!
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 03:34:41PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> This patch is to fix the inconsistent behaviors for non-LTO mode
> and LTO mode. As Martin pointed out, currently the function
> rs6000_can_inline_p simply makes it inlinable if callee_tree is
> NULL, but it's unexpected, we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > In the past stack sharing has been quite important for the linux
> > kernel. So perhaps one of the tests we should do if we wanted to go
> > forward in this cycle would be to test kernel builds to see if any start
> > tripping over the stack space
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
> symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand
> what the
MASK_MVCLE is set for -Os but not for other optimization levels. In
general it should not make much sense to inline across calls where the
flag is different but we have to allow it for always_inline.
The patch also rearranges the hook implementation a bit based on the
recommendations from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #1 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Strange, I didn't receive a mail/notification for this PR all, otherwise I
would have looked into it earlier. This has been happening a few times lately,
grml. Looking into it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand what
the condition exec is really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> (set (reg:V16QI 93)
> (unspec:V16QI [
> (subreg:V16QI (reg/v:V2DI 92 [ input ]) 0)
> (subreg:V16QI (reg/v:V2DI 91 [ value ]) 0)
>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:16 AM LiYancheng via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/2/7 10:03, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 5:59 PM LiYancheng via Gcc wrote:
> >> Hello everyone!
> >>
> >> I have some questions to ask:
> >>
> >> 1. How does GCC support Sapphrie Rapids CPU now?
> >>
> >>
This is at par with other major arches such as aarch64, i386, s390 ...
No testsuite regressions: same numbers w/ w/o
| === gcc Summary ===
|
|# of expected passes 113392
|# of unexpected failures 27
|# of unexpected successes 3
|# of expected failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
--- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
I had a try for GCC11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574421.html.
The patches could mitigate the BB-count mismatch issue for loops. In theory,
this patch would make sense. But it also
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/587635.html
BR,
Kewen
>> on 2022/1/5 下午3:34, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch is to fix the inconsistent behaviors for non-LTO mode
>>> and LTO mode. As Martin pointed out, currently the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Just note pshufb needs SSE3, and it seems reasonable to define a SSE3 broadcast
pattern which generates pxor + pshufb.
on 2022/1/28 上午1:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:21:33PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> PR target/103627
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_option_override_internal): Disable
>> MMA if !TARGET_VSX.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e66ba0f55c000152df63fc67c11a64f79122ef86
commit r12-7079-ge66ba0f55c000152df63fc67c11a64f79122ef86
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Sun Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8103623923ac4ea19b97a369979d4bd5731aab57
commit r12-7078-g8103623923ac4ea19b97a369979d4bd5731aab57
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Sun Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
>[local count: 1073741824]:
> _2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v16qi>(x_3(D));
> _6 = _2 == { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> _7 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
Bug ID: 104413
Summary: _mm_set1_epi8 isn't optimized for SSE2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (unspec:SI [
(eq:V16QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V2DI 94) 0)
(const_vector:V16QI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Similar for
#include
bool is_zero256(__m256i x)
{
return _mm256_movemask_epi8(_mm256_cmpeq_epi8(x, _mm256_setzero_si256()))
== 0x;
}
Hi
When I tried old gfortran7, the below works:
gfortran-7 dgesvd-ex.f -o DGESVD.out -L/usr/local/opt/lapack/lib
-llapack -lblas
But gfortran 11 failed:
gfortran dgesvd-ex.f -o DGESVD.out -L/usr/local/opt/lapack/lib
-llapack -lblas
ld: library not
On 2022/2/7 10:03, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 5:59 PM LiYancheng via Gcc wrote:
Hello everyone!
I have some questions to ask:
1. How does GCC support Sapphrie Rapids CPU now?
2. Does GCC 11 fully support all the features of SPR?
From the release note, it seems that 5g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Wojciech Mula from comment #6)
> Hongtao, thank you for your patch and for pinging back! I checked the code
> from this issue against version 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-14), but still, there
> are
OK to trunk, thanks for fixing this issue, I hit that issue before but
I didn't figure out what happened...since that issue will disappear
when I clean build :p
On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 5:52 AM Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> Make riscv-sr.o depend on target machine headers, removing spurious test
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
--- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng ---
I plan back port this fix to GCC 11 branch too, and will close this bug after
back port.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 5:59 PM LiYancheng via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> I have some questions to ask:
>
> 1. How does GCC support Sapphrie Rapids CPU now?
>
> 2. Does GCC 11 fully support all the features of SPR?
> From the release note, it seems that 5g ISA (fp16)/hfni is
> not
Hello everyone!
I have some questions to ask:
1. How does GCC support Sapphrie Rapids CPU now?
2. Does GCC 11 fully support all the features of SPR?
From the release note, it seems that 5g ISA (fp16)/hfni is
not supported yet.
3. What is the simulation tool used by GCC to verify SPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104271
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
I think this patch has already been reverted by
r12-3011-g1db70e61a92978377a648bbd90e383859fc0126b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is slightly more reduced:
constexpr bool use_func_v{};
struct func_obj
{
template requires use_func_v
void operator()(T);
};
template
concept tt = requires {t{}(args{}...);};
constexpr bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0, 11.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104404
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this was already fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding -fno-vect-cost-model allows it to be optimized. So a cost model issue
Snapshot gcc-12-20220206 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20220206/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Bug ID: 104412
Summary: [Aarch64] Failure to optimize vector initialization
from int64s
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|GC |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
Hello,
On Sun, Feb 06 2022, Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I built gcc from the repo and it took around 2 hours but I am
> wondering should I wait two hours after every modification?
> Is there any way to recompile faster.
> That's very important as we will add some files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
Dear Fortranners,
some instances of valid constant array constructors did lead to ICEs.
It turned out that on the one hand we need to attempt simplification of
elements of the constructor, especially when we encounter parenthesized
expression. On the other hand the occurence of type specs and
Hi Mikael,
Am 04.02.22 um 11:45 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Hello,
Le 29/01/2022 à 22:41, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit :
The least invasive change - already pointed out by the reporter - is
to check the presence of the argument before dereferencing the data
pointer after the offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104411
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104411
Bug ID: 104411
Summary: Cannot capture by reference using braced initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hello,
Is it possible to generate a NOTE instruction at GIMPLE level?
My use case scenario is as below -
I want to create a note for __builtin_xyz(_x) such that there is a
placeholder just before function call and in RTL pass, I want to
modify/assign register number at this placeholder location.
45 mins and i am waiting
في الأحد، ٦ فبراير، ٢٠٢٢ ٩:١٨ م Mir Immad كتب:
> The build system probably first tries to make sure if everything is in
> place and if there were any changes and re-compiles the new/changed files.
>
> How much time does it take when you try to rebuild?
>
> On Mon, Feb
The build system probably first tries to make sure if everything is in
place and if there were any changes and re-compiles the new/changed files.
How much time does it take when you try to rebuild?
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 12:43 AM Mohamed Atef
wrote:
> After i built it
> I tried make - j 8 and
After i built it
I tried make - j 8 and it's recompiling now i thought i will have messege
like
Every thing is up to date or there are no change done
But it actually started to compile again
في الأحد، ٦ فبراير، ٢٠٢٢ ٩:٠٨ م Mir Immad كتب:
> Yes, that is right.
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 12:38 AM
Yes, that is right.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 12:38 AM Mohamed Atef
wrote:
> Hello,
> Only modified files will be recompiled, won't it?
>
>
> في الأحد، ٦ فبراير، ٢٠٢٢ ٩:٠٥ م Mir Immad كتب:
>
>> Make sure to use all the cores available.
>>
>> make -j N
>>
>> e.g; make -j 8
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb
Hello,
Only modified files will be recompiled, won't it?
في الأحد، ٦ فبراير، ٢٠٢٢ ٩:٠٥ م Mir Immad كتب:
> Make sure to use all the cores available.
>
> make -j N
>
> e.g; make -j 8
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 12:26 AM Mohamed Atef via Gcc
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>> I built
Make sure to use all the cores available.
make -j N
e.g; make -j 8
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 12:26 AM Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I built gcc from the repo and it took around 2 hours but I am
> wondering should I wait two hours after every modification?
> Is there any
Hello everyone,
I built gcc from the repo and it took around 2 hours but I am
wondering should I wait two hours after every modification?
Is there any way to recompile faster.
That's very important as we will add some files and tests for OMPD.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97040
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Bug ID: 104410
Summary: Internal error using default-initialized constexpr
bool in requires clause
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
-build_pc-linux-gnu
--target=aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220206/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--exec_prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220206/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--with-sysroot=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220206/aarch64-unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96242
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96242
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8eb329e963593342855b6072e5692659107337b7
commit r12-7076-g8eb329e963593342855b6072e5692659107337b7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104118
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
At present, I cannot reproduce this with the .i and the command line given -
please could you attach the .o and .s files as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> > FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
>
> Does it affect only ppc64? I am asking since if it affects ppc32,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #18 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
Does it affect only ppc64? I am asking since if it affects ppc32, then I rather
rebuild gcc10ppc and gcc11ppc installed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 843ce97b993..3f803bd791f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #2 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52360=edit
Fix broken split-stack support for GNU/Hurd
Hello,
The attached patch defines OPTION_GLIBC_P and OPTION_GLIBC that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
--- Comment #3 from eric.pouech at orange dot fr ---
bug opened on binutils side
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > The following patch solves the problem:
>
>
> Does this also address Bug 104118?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
>
> The first one is in rs6000.cc::legitimate_lo_sum_address_p which permits
> wrong pic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104033
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386
--- Comment #2 from Artur Bać ---
I think it is connected with this case
https://godbolt.org/z/cvfs1KqGW
https://godbolt.org/z/vdzTzo7be
//sizeof(foo) ==12
struct base
{
uint32_t x{};
std::byte v{};
base() noexcept = default;
};
struct foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
commit r12-7075-gf9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104033
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
commit r12-7075-gf9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
In particular, the rewrite should probably be gated on the expression being
single use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> But seems to me a simple enough thing that we should be able to handle.
It looks simple but register allocation especially with demands on some things
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The big question becomes now is really an issue in real world code or just a
> toy benchmark which is testing argument/return passing optimizations?
Can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104406
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Yeah it looks like there's an overlap with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485 indeed, but that ticket
seems to be trying to address multiple things at once including an x86 costing
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
Bug ID: 104408
Summary: SLP discovery fails due to -Ofast rewriting
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Created attachment 52359 [details]
> Cuda reproducer
Filed at https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia_bug/3527713 as "cvt.u32.u16
sign-extends instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
--- Comment #2 from eric.pouech at orange dot fr ---
output of compiling with -save-temp
generating the good.s, good-eng.s and fail.s (with same naming conventions as
in #1)
[eric]$ diff good.s good-eng.s
7812c7812
< .ascii "Unknown PCI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52359=edit
Cuda reproducer
97 matches
Mail list logo
