https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 33661.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848
Bug ID: 98848
Summary: [9/10/11 regression] vectorizer failed to reduce max
pattern.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
With a bit adjustment of testcase, vectorized.
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ extern short a[9000];
int foo()
{
- int b;
+ short b;
int i;
b = a[0];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like tail merging triggers this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98813
--- Comment #8 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
For code in comment 4, it is optimized since there are some range info for "_2
= l_m_34 + _54;" where _54 > 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
+find_duplicates: duplicate of
+Removing basic block 20
@@ -170,7 +180,7 @@
[local count: 3614577]:
goto ; [100.00%]
- [local count: 7016531]:
+ [local count: 8742389]:
p_218_24 = p_217_23(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
Bug ID: 98849
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in expand_shift_1, at
expmed.c:2658 since g:7432f255b70811dafaf325d9403
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #24 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
Thanks for the quick fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #33)
> The bootstrap-lto.mk patch breaks LTO bootstrap on Windows: you cannot
> compare executables on this system since they are timestamped. I really
> don't see t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97260
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efc9ccbfd0ca4da6bf0aba913df6f77f56044dc2
commit r11-6922-gefc9ccbfd0ca4da6bf0aba913df6f77f56044dc2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
>
> Jason Merrill changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97260
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 regression] memcmp |[9/10 regression] memcmp of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:003f0414291d595d2126e6d2e24b281f38f3448f
commit r11-6924-g003f0414291d595d2126e6d2e24b281f38f3448f
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Because I didn't try to invent a clever way to detect which ones will
> actually exist (but I know lto1 will). Sure some extra-compare-if-exists
> could be invented. If there's no way to compare binaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98848
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98774
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> It's fixed in current trunk https://godbolt.org/z/63576n
I can confirm that now GCC does use packed multiplication mulpd. Although it is
used somewhat inefficiently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98850
Bug ID: 98850
Summary: ICE in expand_debug_locations, at cfgexpand.c:5458
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50067&action=edit
gcc11-pr98841.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:530b1d688761db46b33d26864d3a0684cc82e0f9
commit r11-6926-g530b1d688761db46b33d26864d3a0684cc82e0f9
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jan 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
>
> --- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Because I didn't try to invent a cle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed ICE in GCC11, will delete relevant expanders and fold those builtins in
GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4225af228b5d52e8d7593dea49584c91b4bc2e1f
commit r11-6928-g4225af228b5d52e8d7593dea49584c91b4bc2e1f
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4225af228b5d52e8d7593dea49584c91b4bc2e1f
commit r11-6928-g4225af228b5d52e8d7593dea49584c91b4bc2e1f
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
int a[1024], b[1024];
void
foo (void)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
a[i] = b[i] << 3;
}
void
bar (int x)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
a[i] = b[i] << x;
}
ICEs with -O3 -mcpu=iwmmxt too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
--- Comment #20 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> So I think when you consider
>
> void __attribute__((noinline)) fun(int * a, int * b, int c)
> {
> int i;
> for (i=0; i < 256; i++) {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98852
Bug ID: 98852
Summary: [11 Regression] Conditional expression wrongly
rejected for arm_neon.h vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4
Known to fail|
unknown-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r11-6925-20210127102218-g6cf43433750-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
>
> --- Comment #20 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
Bug ID: 98854
Summary: [11 Regression] cray benchmark is about 15% slower
since r11-4428-g4a369d199bf2f34e
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One can see it here:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/CPP/graph?plot.0=245.639.0&plot.1=171.639.0&;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98843
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
thanks Gary, I expect to be able to reprduce the iostream.ii myself, and
particularly as (the lack of) -save-temps seems to be significant, I'll
probably need to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For #c2 I've tried:
--- gcc/tree-vect-generic.c.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:38.289239984 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-generic.c 2021-01-27 13:53:28.457752505 +0100
@@ -2147,16 +2147,21 @@ expand_vector_operations_1 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
And we allocate
plus 66M 1606M
66 million PLUS RTXen via
explow.c:200 (plus_constant) 0 : 0.0% 1596M:
92.0%0 : 0.0%0 : 0.0%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98853
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Nathan,
last night I've tried the patch you posted on both i386-pc-solaris2.11
and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, with mixed results:
* The new g++.dg/modules/pr98531_* testcases PASS.
* Howev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to AK from comment #8)
> Should we consider this fixed?
I think we can still do better, by using GNU memmem when it's available:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-January/466460.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 1/27/21 8:30 AM, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
>
> --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> Nathan,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like after the refactoring to introduce MVE shifts (which doesn't ICE) we
need to make sure the optab is still disabled for iwmmxt?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
I'm not familiar with iwmmxt, but the testcase in comment #2 is vectorized
with:
* -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=auto -mfloat-abi=hard (uses Neon FPU)
* -mcpu=cortex-m55 -mfpu=auto -mfloat-abi=hard (uses MVE/Helium
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> Looks like after the refactoring to introduce MVE shifts (which doesn't ICE)
> we need to make sure the optab is still disabled for iwmmxt?
So that would mean that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems vec_init optab is supported if TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE, so maybe
guard the shift expander also on && (TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE)?
Or && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT. Dunno if one can mix iwmmxt wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
Bug ID: 98855
Summary: [11 Regression] botan XTEA is 100% slower on znver2
since r11-4428-g4a369d199bf2f34e
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> so to answer your question arm does have vector shift by scalar.
If it does, it doesn't advertize them:
make mddump
grep '"v\?ashlv[0-9qhsdi]*3"' tmp-mddump.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, one can see it with BB vectorization enabled vs. disabled.
Bad:
Samples: 7K of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 7540324763
Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a199da782fc165fd45f42a15cc9020994efd455d
commit r11-6931-ga199da782fc165fd45f42a15cc9020994efd455d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98815
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm the patch survives bootstrap and regression tests.
I'm going to send it at the beginning of the next stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Little bit convoluted testcase:
double a[1024];
int bar();
void foo (int n)
{
double x = 0, y = 0;
int i = 1023;
do
{
x += a[i] + a[i+1];
y += a[i] / a[i+1];
if (bar ())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|9.4
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
Dimitrij Mijoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmjpp at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This was already fixed on master by r11-6682
05a30af3f237984b4dcf1dbbc17fdac583c46506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
Bug ID: 98856
Summary: [11 Regression] botan AES-128/XTS is slower by ~17%
since
r11-6649-g285fa338b06b804e72997c4d876ecf08a9c083af
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
And likely something similar happens since the same revision:
botan/KASUMI decrypt
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/CPP/graph?plot.0=245.694.1&plot.1=171.694.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98853
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50069&action=edit
gcc11-pr98853.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98857
Bug ID: 98857
Summary: Add support for function attributes applied to
function pointers from non-capturing lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83417
David Friberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davveston at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Little bit convoluted testcase:
>
> double a[1024];
>
> int bar();
> void foo (int n)
> {
> double x = 0, y = 0;
> int i = 1023;
> do
> {
> x +=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98766
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e753db89ddcc7f005fd54f861375bcdc85f23335
commit r10-9305-ge753db89ddcc7f005fd54f861375bcdc85f23335
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
--- Comment #3 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This was already fixed on master by r11-6682
> 05a30af3f237984b4dcf1dbbc17fdac583c46506
Yes, that patch mostly fixes bug 70303, too. With that patch, the as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98766
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Li?ka ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> I used -O3 but -O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize also vectorizes it.
I must be blind, but I see for the current master:
gcc pr98854.c -c -O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout
foo (int n)
{
u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> > I used -O3 but -O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98824
--- Comment #1 from Dimitri Gorokhovik ---
It doesn't seem to contradict N4868 :-(
Modifying the code slightly (adding refs, splitting deduction across two fn
templates) didn't show any other differences from clang: all other modification
either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
./cc1 -quiet -nostdinc -O3 -mcpu=iwmmxt pr98849-2.c -fdump-tree-all-folding
-mfpu=neon
cc1: error: iWMMXt and NEON are incompatible
So I think TARGET_NEON && TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT is never true.
Don't know if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
--- Comment #4 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50066 [details]
> gcc11-pr98847.patch
>
> Untested fix.
That will probably also fix bug #98846
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c91db798ec65b3e55f2380ca1530ecb71544f1bb
commit r11-6934-gc91db798ec65b3e55f2380ca1530ecb71544f1bb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97684
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
--- Comment #5 from max.pd at gmx dot de ---
The -fdec compiler flag provides a possible work around. When opening a Unit
with CARRIAGECONTROL='NONE' (an option available with DEC extensions in
gfortran), the program won't show the unexpected beha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98351
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still ICEs even when that other bug is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
Orgad Shaneh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orgads at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Orgad Shaneh from comment #13)
> The case described in comment 1 doesn't issue a warning with GCC 10.
It does for me with -Wall -O (you need at least some optimization). If there is
still a probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #7 from Olaf Mandel ---
(In reply to Olaf Mandel from comment #0)
> In the minimal demo used here this only happens for a template member
> function, but in larger code it can also be observed for a plain member
> function: see e.g. h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98849
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
Yes MVE is incompatible with iWMMXt.
Regarding the pattern name, quoting what I wrote in the commit message:
I kept the mve_vshlq_ naming instead of renaming it to
ashl3__ as discussed because the referen
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
