https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86218
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Feb 7 07:50:42 2019
New Revision: 268606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268606=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR86218] handle ck_aggr in compare_ics in both and either conversion
Because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The attached patch had several regressions, use the one I posted instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00371.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89232
Bug ID: 89232
Summary: c++: Fail to build when and the
noreturn keyword is used
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89231
Bug ID: 89231
Summary: Ambiguous template instantiation for variadic nested
class
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 63197, which changed state.
Bug 63197 Summary: tc-m68k.c: Wrong warning "array subscript is below array
bounds"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So what is happening here is GCC does not know the properties of sprintf/printf
to know they can't modify memory therefor GCC cannot figure out d->D_fid[2]
does not change from the first if statement to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
Bug ID: 89229
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] Unnecessary ZMM in
movoi_internal_avx/movti_internal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
Bug ID: 89230
Summary: Bogus uninited usage warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21014
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to dave from comment #5)
> Subject: Re: read-rtl.c:670: warning: missing sentinel in function call
>
> > result = concat ("(", cond1, ") && (", cond2, ")", NULL);
> >
> >
> > Looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan-Benedict Glaw from comment #2)
> With today's binutils snapshot, there's a gas_assert in front of it, which
> silences this bogus warning. That needs to be reverted to test GCC wrt. this
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at cora dot nwra.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88680
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00363.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78063
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #5
465:
.size _Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_, .-_Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.1 20190206 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89228
Bug ID: 89228
Summary: ARM unwinder fails to restore vfp reg $d8
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89217
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
...which means that we should most likely deal with REFERENCE_REF_P in case
COMPONENT_REF in tsubst_copy_and_build. Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
My mistake. The patch did land on 1-22. I was looking at the wrong ChangeLog
(this is a testsuite fix). Looks like that patch is needed to be backported to
8 now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
But this test stopped failing on January 21, so maybe the patch was applied
without the ChangeLog?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89225
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Feb 6 21:48:45 2019
New Revision: 268597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268597=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-06 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/89225
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89227
--- Comment #3 from boger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #1)
> Same as https://golang.org/issue/29046?
Yes same as the issue. Since we weren't sure if this was a FE or BE bug I
decided to open a bugzilla.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78063
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Seems most of the *by_pieces code actually uses widest_int_mode_for_size
> which already handles even the wider modes as long as they have a mov
> instruction. With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that the change was backported to gcc 8 (r268578) and the test case fails
there now the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89227
boger at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89164
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89199
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89199
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Feb 6 20:46:00 2019
New Revision: 268591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268591=gcc=rev
Log:
PR go/89199
sync/atomic: use strong form of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe i386.c would need its own ix86_use_by_pieces_infrastructure_p target hook
if the default wouldn't do the right thing with this. Maybe we'll need to
split STORE_MAX_PIECES into separately overridable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71860
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71860
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb 6 20:34:42 2019
New Revision: 268590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268590=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/71860
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is because in copy1 it is a normal memcpy expansion.
And, the generic move_by_pieces case is done in preference to target specific
one. In i386.h we have:
/* Max number of bytes we can move from memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89227
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Same as https://golang.org/issue/29046?
I would bet that this has something to do with the fact that testenv.HasLink is
inlinable. Something is wrong with the way that the frontend is passing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
The optimized dump for copy1 looks like
*to_2(D) = *from_3(D);
so we get essentially memcpy, while copy2 has
_4 = MEM[(const struct foo512 &)from_3(D)].a;
MEM[(struct foo512 *)to_2(D)].a = _4;
_5 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89227
Bug ID: 89227
Summary: gotools test cmd/go fails with link error "call lacks
nop, can't restore toc; recompile with -fPIC"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71302
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71302
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Feb 6 19:44:52 2019
New Revision: 268589
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268589=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix locations in conversion_null_warnings (PR c++/71302)
PR c++/71302 reports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Minimal fix committed to trunk, with a complete fix posted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00346.html for stage 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
Bug ID: 89226
Summary: codegen for copying a 512-bit object fails to use avx
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
--- Comment #14 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Feb 6 18:54:16 2019
New Revision: 268588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268588=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c with Solaris as (PR debug/87451)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Larmour ---
Thanks for the quick reply.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Not confirming since it is unclear even on what OS you are using this
It's an embedded OS, so from your point of view, it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Oh, DOM is too early, it's expansion that exposes the redundancies. Seems
like CSE ought to be able to pick this up though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> > > We ICE on the fact that _ZTV1aIN12_GLOBAL__N_11fEE which is vtable for
> > > anonymous namespace type but it has EXTERNAL flag set.
> > >
> > > Jason, why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not confirming since it is unclear even on what OS you are using this and what
to look for (I don't see r5 set close to start of main etc.). That said, if
hal_setjmp works similarly to setjmp, but you don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89217
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Some sort of modification happens twice for the RANGE_FOR_EXPR. Originally we
have
{*((struct S *) this)->r}
which should be turned to
TARGET_EXPR r}>
but we now reprocess this again and get bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Feb 6 17:25:26 2019
New Revision: 268586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268586=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89102 fix common_type<> and common_type specializations
This is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> If Martins bisection to power.fppized.o is correct you can bisect the loop
> via the vect_loop or vect_slp debug counters (or first try with just
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89213
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
For 32-bit or smaller shifts you can use vspltisb always, or vspltis[hw] if
you prefer.
If generating code for ISA 2.07 (Power8) you don't have xxspltib but you do
have vsld/vsrd/vsrad/vrld, hrm. You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #10 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 45621
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45621=edit
Tentative patch for libgo on s390x
I didn't manage to make much progress with analyzing the remaining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What we could do there is remove the first of those two splitters, remove the
&& !dead_or_set_p (insn, operands[1])
test from the second, and add peephole2 that would transform
(set (access part 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess either we should lower ARRAY_REF indexes with precisions higher than
pointer precision to that smaller precision early (during gimplification
e.g.?), though not really sure what effect would that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89225
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
It seems my latest patch for PR87246 caused this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=268404
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r210113.
int_cst_value changed there:
/* Make sure the sign-extended value will fit in a HOST_WIDE_INT. */
- gcc_assert (TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (x) == 0
- || TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (x) ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 6 15:36:20 2019
New Revision: 268583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268583=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89024 - ICE with incomplete enum type.
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 6 15:33:18 2019
New Revision: 268582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268582=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89119 - ICE with value-initialization in template.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 6 15:29:14 2019
New Revision: 268581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268581=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88983 - ICE with switch in constexpr function.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89199
boger at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89158
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89158
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 6 15:26:24 2019
New Revision: 268580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268580=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89158 - by-value capture of constexpr variable broken.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89215
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. the LLVM demangler even documents that leak:
const char *DemangleCXXABI(const char *name) {
// FIXME: __cxa_demangle aggressively insists on allocating memory.
// There's not much we can do about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89225
Bug ID: 89225
Summary: [9 Regression] LRA hang on ppc64le compiling glibc
starting with r268404
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88749
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71302
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
Christoph Hertzberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chtz at informatik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89215
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems to be upstream bug, also in asan etc., Demangle(name) in there doesn't
really differentiate between cases where it allocated the memory or just
returned the passed in string or did something else.
E.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89213
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Sure I could use XXSPLTIB all of the time if I limit the optimization to ISA
3.0 (power9). I was trying to add optimization for shift counts for 1..15 on
ISA 2.07 (power8) as well, hence using VSPLTISW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 6 12:56:02 2019
New Revision: 268578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268578=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-01-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 6 12:56:02 2019
New Revision: 268578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268578=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-01-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89224
Bug ID: 89224
Summary: subscript of NEON intrinsic discards const
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Bug ID: 89223
Summary: internal compiler error: in int_cst_value, at
tree.c:11226
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
--- Comment #7 from Marc Schmitt ---
Created attachment 45619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45619=edit
Preprocessed test case with eigen-only dependency
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
--- Comment #6 from Marc Schmitt ---
Created attachment 45618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45618=edit
Reduced test case with eigen-only dependency
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
Marc Schmitt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schmitt.marc at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89213
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You could just do
xxspltib xx,sh
vsrad 2,2,xx
(only the low 6 bits of the shift count are looked at, for 64-bit shifts,
in all vector insns).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Larmour ---
Created attachment 45617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45617=edit
Assembler file generated by GCC when compiled with -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
Bug ID: 89222
Summary: [7.x regression] ARM thumb-2 misoptimisation of func
ptr call with -O2 or -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89154
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The r1 adjustment is establishing the stack frame. It needs to precede all
stack accesses (not just those by the prologue saves!) We could separately
wrap it, if that would help? You can then get
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
