https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88768
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
If I add the "generic :: write(unformatted) => write_unformatted" part in my
code (but do not use it), I see other failures somehow triggered by openmp
parallelisation (no recursion involved). Using the address sani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88851
Bug ID: 88851
Summary: [9 Regression] SVE Stack clash and r263173 use
conflicting registers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Bug ID: 88850
Summary: [9 Regression] Hard register coming out of expand
causing reload to fail.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Jonathan,
I'm still seeing it on a build started at r267915, perhaps something is still
missing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88849
Bug ID: 88849
Summary: std::binomial_distribution generates slightly larger
values than expected
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #7 from 刘袋鼠 ---
Simple testcase below related to read_complex_part/write_complex_part
cat complex.c
_Complex float
foo (_Complex float a, _Complex float b)
{
_Complex float c,d;
c = a + b;
return c;
}
cat complex.s
.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes this does violate aliasing rules. Easy fix is to add may_alias to the
attributes of unaligned_int128_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
--- Comment #4 from wangchang15 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> This shouldn't happen. Can you please provide a complete testcase?
Hi,Richard, my reply to your comment is comment #3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
wangchang15 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wangchang15 at huawei dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Bug ID: 88848
Summary: member ambiguous in multiple inheritance lattice
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #11 from Дилян Палаузов ---
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70345#c4 it does not
matter whether liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 from GCC7 or 8 is installed under
$libdir/bfd-plugins: both work for both compiler versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88777
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 86552, which changed state.
Bug 86552 Summary: missing warning for reading past the end of non-string arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81437
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Output from the test in comment 0 is now
NaN 0.NaN
n= 3
a= NaN NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33430
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Patch proposed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-03/msg00014.html.
This has been committed at revision r239489 (2016-08-15).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88825
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88825
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 14 22:01:24 2019
New Revision: 267926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88825 - ICE with bogus function return type deduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Thinking about this, insn 14 doesn't look legal to me for ppc, since FP values
in our FP regs are actually stored as 64-bit quantities, even for SFmode, so
copying a 32-bit SImode value over to a 64-bit wide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51788
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
Bug ID: 88847
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_move_1.c ICE with
-fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
This has been failing for quite a while now and there is apparently a fix for
it. Can we get it fixed for GCC 9.0 release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, if I compile this with r267800 (cross-compiler, but identical output
to the attached one) and then on the problematic do_rpo_vn function return in
gdb at the start of make_more_copies so effective
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88830
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88830
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 14 20:09:10 2019
New Revision: 267924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267924&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88830 - ICE with abstract class.
* decl2.c (mayb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510
--- Comment #4 from Devin Hussey ---
I am deciding to refer to goodmul as ssemul from now on. I think it is a better
name.
I am also wondering if Aarch64 gets a benefit from this vs. scalarizing if the
value is already in a NEON register. I don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45428&action=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.s.xz
And resulting (bad) assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45427&action=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.ii.xz
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I add __attribute__((optimize (0))) to:
static unsigned
do_rpo_vn (function *fn, edge entry, bitmap exit_bbs,
bool iterate, bool eliminate)
and recompile stage2 tree-ssa-sccvn.o + relink stage2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #10)
> Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
> 9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
> When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
> --enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
[.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88638 - FAIL: fsf-nsstring-format-1.s on darwin
gcc/c-family/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
--enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
configure:3662: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3684:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:40:34 2019
New Revision: 267921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix location of tls_wrapper_fn (PR gcov-profile/88263).
2019-01-14 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
(insn 9 2 7 2 (set (reg:DF 125)
(mem/u/c:DF (reg/f:SI 124) [0 S8 A64])) "pr69776-2.c":11:7 503
{*movdf_hardfloat32}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:SI 124)
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem:DF (reg:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Bug ID: 88846
Summary: [9 Regression] pr69776-2.c failure on 32 bit AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
After IRA, we have the following RTL with pseudo 124 being assigned to r9,
which does not meet the "f" constraint required by the inline asm:
(insn 6 5 7 2 (set (reg:SI 124)
(const_int 0 [0])) "pr888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
Bug ID: 88845
Summary: ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1010
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88844
Bug ID: 88844
Summary: poor range info for number of loop iterations with a
known upper bound
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88822
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If an rvalue's type (or, for that matter, an lvalue's type) is observed
with _Generic, the qualifiers should be consistently dropped.
If a type is observed with typeof, qualifiers need to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Bug ID: 88843
Summary: [9 Regression] make: Circular s-attr-common <-
insn-conditions.md dependency dropped.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #10 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
RHEL 7.5 which is the latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
MCCCS changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2 from MCCCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #5)
> ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
Yes, SEGFAULT happens right in the sanitizer code that's responsible
for creation of a thread. Thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #7)
> I canse it plays a role:
> I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
> which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
> and glibc glibc-2.17-222.el7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
--- Comment #1 from ptdrnvqd at 10mail dot org ---
from retweet danluu
↓
https://twitter.com/johnregehr/status/923682400676093952
not every day you run across a … easy optimization missing from all of LLVM,
GCC, and Intel CC…
↓
http://lists.llvm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
--- Comment #7 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #6)
> Here is a possibly related case:
>
> [...]
I think this is a different bug. GCC thinks the implicitly-deleted move
assignment operator `pair& pair::o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
Bug ID: 88842
Summary: missing optimization CSE, reassociation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88841
Bug ID: 88841
Summary: Missed optimization transforming cascading ||s into a
bit select
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> > decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> > relayout_de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> relayout_decl for this which is for example called from omp-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #7 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
I canse it plays a role:
I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
and glibc glibc-2.17-222.el7.i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> It's quite strange that following is fine:
>
> $ cat pr88587-2.c
> __attribute__((target("default"))) void a() {
> __attribute__((__vector_size__(4 * sizeof(float int b = {};
> }
>
> __attribute__((t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #6 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 45426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45426&action=edit
ASAN debug output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #5 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
SignalHandler_Unix.h is in my application's code.
I've attached ASAN's debug output where I removed all messages talking abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
--- Comment #1 from Wei Xiao ---
My change (r265827) is based on the latest SDM (Intel® 64 and IA-32
Architectures Software Developer Manuals) which is incorrect for the fixupimm
intrinsics. I'm preparing a patch to fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz ---
Experience from testing my simd implementation:
I had failures (2 ULP deviation from long double result) when using
auto __xx = abs(__x);
auto __yy = abs(__y);
auto __zz = abs(__z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88755
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
and:
$ g++ /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/catch3p.C
--param uninlined-thunk-insns=2062717165 -Og
during IPA pass: inline
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-dej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
On GCC testcases one large group of MEMs only disambiguated through
base_alias_check is disambiguations agains DSEs group_info->base_mem
which is BLKmode mems based on some "base" pointer. This base_mem
la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> We could constrain the declaration with SFINAE, but the program would still
> be ill-formed (you still can't ask if the construct() call would throw,
> because th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #12 from gnzlbg ---
> I disagree. Once it's documented, people will rely on it and scream if it
> changes. Caveats about something maybe changing in future don't help. If it's
> documented to behave one way today, people will depend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
LLVM seems to hit a case where this matters, and I'm not sure if it's invalid
yet:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1121591
The __use_relocate member of std::vector will check the exception-sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88839
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #41)
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
> >
> > --- Comment #38 from rsandifo at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hm, maybe one could simply remove the substring during resolution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Bug ID: 88840
Summary: [9 Regression] std::allocator::construct signature
might be ill-formed now
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #61 from Marian ---
Thanks for your reply
> The GCC 8 Changes page[*] says -Wstrict-overflow is deprecated (even if it is
> supposed to still work) and recommends to use
> -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow to get a run-time warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I disagree. Once it's documented, people will rely on it and scream if it
changes. Caveats about something maybe changing in future don't help. If it's
documented to behave one way today, people will depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 14 12:01:01 2019
New Revision: 267916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/88796
* emit-rtl.h (struct rtl_data):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88839
Bug ID: 88839
Summary: [SVE] Poor implementation of blend-like permutes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #14)
> Created attachment 45425 [details]
> Patch
>
> Hi,
> In the attached patch, I cache results of malloc_candidate_p_1 and avoid
> traversing "back edges".
> Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
Bug ID: 88838
Summary: [SVE] Use 32-bit WHILELO in LP64 mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #14 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45425
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45425&action=edit
Patch
Hi,
In the attached patch, I cache results of malloc_candidate_p_1 and avoid
traversi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 14 11:30:47 2019
New Revision: 267915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 add missing dg-require-filesystem-ts
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88837
Bug ID: 88837
Summary: [SVE] Poor vector construction code in VL-specific
mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88837
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
Dennis Lubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plasmahh at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Richard B
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
