https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107897
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p fn->curr_properties
$4 = 92431
that looks like garbage. We likely cut off processing one of the functions
because of the error (and failed to initialize ->curr_properties when
allocating struct
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:06 PM liuhongt wrote:
>
> For __builtin_ia32_vec_set_v16qi (a, -1, 2) with
> !flag_signed_char. it's transformed to
> __builtin_ia32_vec_set_v16qi (_4, 255, 2) in the gimple,
> and expanded to (const_int 255) in the rtl. But for immediate_operand,
> it expects (const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107906
Bug ID: 107906
Summary: Function template specialization given weak rather
than local symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66671
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107863
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
I notice there's TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES which can prevent unsigend char 255
be extended to int 255 which is a more perfect solution to this problem. But we
can only get fntype in this hook, ideally we
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 20:49:00 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/22 19:56, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:46:16 PST (-0800), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Yeah, I personally want to support RVV intrinsics in GCC13. As RVV
intrinsic is going to release soon next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107905
--- Comment #2 from Georgi ---
> I don't see that causing a 2x slow down though.
Same here, yet, the results prove that not only on Zen2, on top of that on
i5-7200U @2.5GHz and Windows 10, this function takes 203s, cannot figure it
out, could
On 11/28/22 18:53, Feng Wang wrote:
on 2022-11-28 23:39 Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/27/22 19:14, Feng Wang wrote:
From: wangfeng
There is no Immediate operand of ins "rol" accroding to the B-ext,
so the immediate operand should be loaded into register at first.
But we can convert it to the
On 11/28/22 19:56, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:46:16 PST (-0800), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Yeah, I personally want to support RVV intrinsics in GCC13. As RVV
intrinsic is going to release soon next week.
OK, that's fine with me -- I was leaning that way, and I think
I am working on a project which is using an A53 core. The core does not
raise an exception if there is a division by zero (for either integer or
floating point division).
The designers chose to set status bits for the floating point case but not
raise an exception.With the integer
Hi Jeff,
Thanks a lot for your comments!
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/22/22 19:58, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your comments!
>>
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>
>>> On 11/20/22 20:07, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Jiufu Guo writes:
> Hi,
>
> As mentioned in the previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 107482, which changed state.
Bug 107482 Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] out-of-bounds heap access in IRA
since r6-3496-g86f0bef37378a0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd6963543042ce713d290c23e098de84865a287f
commit r10-11100-gbd6963543042ce713d290c23e098de84865a287f
Author: Max Filippov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:01df02a881a0b6d7c5746e717a9d0355ee4e747a
commit r11-10399-g01df02a881a0b6d7c5746e717a9d0355ee4e747a
Author: Max Filippov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fb5287dfcf3bef8adea98a4bded441c95e43914
commit r12-8947-g1fb5287dfcf3bef8adea98a4bded441c95e43914
Author: Max Filippov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107904
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:07:24 PST (-0800), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
In case of RVV intrinsic support, there is no changes outside RISC-V backend
since we don't do the autovectorization support for now.
OK, I'm fine with that. Sounds like Kito is too?
I will postpone autovectorization
In case of RVV intrinsic support, there is no changes outside RISC-V backend
since we don't do the autovectorization support for now.
I will postpone autovectorization until GCC14 is open.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: 2022-11-29 10:56
To: juzhe.zhong
CC: Kito Cheng;
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:46:16 PST (-0800), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Yeah, I personally want to support RVV intrinsics in GCC13.
As RVV intrinsic is going to release soon next week.
OK, that's fine with me -- I was leaning that way, and I think Jeff only
had a weak opposition. Are there any
David, thank you very much. That looks very much like what I was hoping
for.
I'll dig into it tomorrow.
Heartfelt thanks,
Bob Dubner.
-Original Message-
From: David Malcolm
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 18:01
To: Robert Dubner ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: 'Bob Dubner'
Subject: Re: Code
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:40 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/11/22 02:26, liuhongt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >2 years ago, ARM folks support HWASAN[1] in GCC[2], and introduced
> > several
> > target hooks(Many thanks to their work) so other backends can do similar
> > things if they have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107905
Bug ID: 107905
Summary: 2x slowdown versus CLANG and ICL
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Hello,
For class, *I need to come up with a way to improve GCC* and then make a
quick presentation (no implementation required). Ideally, this idea isn't
being worked on already. *I'd appreciate help with coming up with an idea.*
I've thought about this and I'm having trouble coming up with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107904
Bug ID: 107904
Summary: __func__ is not properly treated as an array variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:40 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/11/22 02:26, liuhongt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >2 years ago, ARM folks support HWASAN[1] in GCC[2], and introduced
> > several
> > target hooks(Many thanks to their work) so other backends can do similar
> > things if they have
on 2022-11-28 23:39 Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>On 11/27/22 19:14, Feng Wang wrote:
>> From: wangfeng
>>
>> There is no Immediate operand of ins "rol" accroding to the B-ext,
>> so the immediate operand should be loaded into register at first.
>> But we can convert it to the ins "rori" or "roriw", and
Yeah, I personally want to support RVV intrinsics in GCC13.
As RVV intrinsic is going to release soon next week.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Kito Cheng
Date: 2022-11-29 09:38
To: Jeff Law
CC: 钟居哲; gcc-patches; palmer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add attributes for VSETVL PASS
Actually, I am
Actually, I am strongly support those stuff keep merge to trunk until
February, my goal is intrinsic support for vector, but not including any
vectorization like SLP or Loop vectorization, the most critical part is the
vsetvli which is the mode switching, and its almost done.
Those part is kind
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
Sorry for resend this patch, I found I miss commit a file.
1. vector.md: remove tail && mask policy operand for mask mode operations since
we don't need them according to RVV ISA.
2. riscv-v.cc: adapt emit_pred_op for mask mode predicated mov since all RVV
modes
Hi Richard,
在 2022/11/29 2:46, Richard Biener 写道:
> Anyhow - my question still stands - what's the fallback for the callers
> that do not check for failure? How are we sure we're not running into
> these when relaxing the requirement that a MODE_CC prepare_cmp_insn
> must not fail?
I examed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105125
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code has been wrong since the warning was added back in 1999:
r0-25196-g3c12fcc27809a2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
Import include/xtensa-dynconfig.h that defines XCHAL_* macros as fields
of a structure returned from the xtensa_get_config_v function call.
Define that structure and fill it with default parameter values
specified in the include/xtensa-config.h.
Define reusable function xtensa_load_config that
Now that gcc provides __XCHAL_* definitions use them instead of XCHAL_*
definitions from the include/xtensa-config.h. That makes libgcc
dynamically configurable for the target xtensa core.
libgcc/
* config/xtensa/crti.S (xtensa-config.h): Replace #inlcude with
Hello,
this series addresses the long standing issue with xtensa configuration
support by adding a way to configure toolchain for a specific xtensa
core at runtime using the xtensa-dynconfig [1] library as a plugin.
On a platform with shared library support single toolchain binary
becomes capable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
--- Comment #3 from David Faust ---
There are two remaining issues:
1. We are missing support for 'linkage=extern' encoding for variables,
so 'bpf_link_fops' and others are incorrectly marked with 'linkage=global'
instead.
2.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 09:21:00AM -0500, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> We're currently in "stage 3" of GCC 13 development, which means that
> we're focusing on bug-fixing, rather than cleanups and feature work.
> Though exceptions can be made for low-risk work, at the discretion of
>
Hi!
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 09:16:13PM -0500, Charlie Sale via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This is my first contribution to GCC :) one of the beginner projects
> suggested on the website was to add and use RTL type predicates.
It says "See which ones are worth having a predicate for, and add them."
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022, Alex Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> I guess asking the compiler to do two passes on the param list isn't as bad as
> asking to do unbound lookahead. In this case it's bound: look ahead till the
> end of the param list; get as much info as possible, and then do it again to
>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> [temp.res.general]/3 says, in a note, "the usual qualified name lookup
> ([basic.lookup.qual]) applies even in the presence of typename". Thus
> when resolving a TYPENAME_TYPE, it seems we shouldn't be looking past
> non-type members.
>
> This patch
On 11/28/22 15:52, 钟居哲 wrote:
>> I'm tempted to push this into the next stage1 given its arrival after
stage1 close, but if the wider RISC-V maintainers want to see it move
forward, I don't object strongly.
Ok, let's save these patches and merge them when GCC14 stage1 is open.
Would you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107850
--- Comment #4 from Charles-Henri Gros ---
Looking into it further, there may be an implicit requirement that the
predicate does not modify its argument.
https://eel.is/c++draft/algorithms.requirements#6
"When not otherwise constrained, the
On 11/28/22 15:16, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here we're crashing when using an explicit specialization of a function
template with trailing requirements ultimately because decls_match
(called indirectly from register_specialization) returns false since the
template has trailing requirements whereas
Hi Martin,
On 11/13/22 15:58, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 13.11.2022, 15:02 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
On 11/13/22 14:33, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 11/13/22 14:19, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
But there are not only syntactical problems, because
also the type of the
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:10:15 PST (-0800), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Thanks.
I think we still can continue RVV feature reviewing process in github branch
that we have talked about. Such patches that have been reviewed I will still
send
them to GCC mail list and not to merge right now, we can
Thanks.
I think we still can continue RVV feature reviewing process in github branch
that we have talked about. Such patches that have been reviewed I will still
send
them to GCC mail list and not to merge right now, we can wait until stage1 is
open.
Is it a good idea ? I don't want to make
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:46:07PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Anyhow - my question still stands - what's the fallback for the callers
> that do not check for failure? How are we sure we're not running into
> these when relaxing the requirement that a MODE_CC prepare_cmp_insn
> must not fail?
On Mon, 2022-11-28 at 15:28 -0600, Robert Dubner wrote:
> I am part of a team working on a COBOL front end for GCC.
>
> By reverse engineering other front ends, I learned, some months ago,
> how
> to create a function_decl GENERIC node that is the root of a GENERIC
> tree
> describing an entire
Hi Joseph,
On 11/14/22 19:26, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
To quote the convenor in WG14 reflector message 18575 (17 Nov
2020) when I asked about its status, "The author asked me not to put those
on the agenda. He will supply updated versions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Hi Joseph,
On 11/14/22 19:13, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
SYNOPSIS:
unary-operator: . identifier
That's not what you mean. See the standard syntax.
Yup; typo there.
unary-expression:
[other alternatives]
unary-operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103160
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
OK.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2022-11-29 00:49
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add duplicate vector support.
On 11/25/22 09:06, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
Yes, it's a cleanup.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2022-11-29 00:48
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng; palmer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Remove tail && mask policy operand for vmclr,
vmset, vmld, vmst
On 11/28/22 07:21, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> From: Ju-Zhe
>> I'm tempted to push this into the next stage1 given its arrival after
>> stage1 close, but if the wider RISC-V maintainers want to see it move
>> forward, I don't object strongly.
Ok, let's save these patches and merge them when GCC14 stage1 is open.
Would you mind telling me when will stage 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100569
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879
--- Comment #7 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 53978 [details]
> gcc13-pr107879.patch
>
> Untested fix.
The patch fixed real ffmpeg-4 tests for me (before the change there were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106897
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|ice during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|strchrnul' was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, Zopolis0 via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Firstly, to get feedback and reviews on the 56 already existing
> patches, even though most are just re-adding code or making idiomatic
> changes, so that when the final issue is solved everything has already
> been approved (hopefully) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107684
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107685
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94147
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
1 - 100 of 366 matches
Mail list logo
