https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103171
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 (IceLake) (64C 128T 512G):
> BenchMarks Copies RunTime1RunTime2Rate1 Rate2
> Compare
> 548.exchange2_r 128 479 913 700 367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
>
> --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
>
> --- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
>
> The problem is this construct in Per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
Levy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||admin at levyhsu dot com
--- Comment #10 from Le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am even seeing almost 10% performance drop from GCC 7 to the trunk even. Even
at -O2. This is on an OcteonTX2:
-O2:
7.4.0:
2150.408184
trunk:
2032.971945
-O2 -fno-tree-vectorize:
trunk:
2028.648257
-O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101474
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note ICF behavior and inlining is what PR 96252 is about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vegard.nossum at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> Btw, try
>
> int h(int a, int b, int c, int d)
> {
> return (c & -(a==b)) | (d & -(a!=b));
> }
>
> to see we have some way to go here.
I filed that as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #17 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12 and GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb8ff3cbc09e029ca0cbd0d8b09bcaba162ab95a
commit r11-9257-geb8ff3cbc09e029ca0cbd0d8b09bcaba162ab95a
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5844cb0bc8c7d9be2ff1ecded249cad82b9b71c
commit r12-5445-gb5844cb0bc8c7d9be2ff1ecded249cad82b9b71c
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103354
Bug ID: 103354
Summary: missed optimization with & and | and compares
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Bug ID: 103353
Summary: Indefinite recursion when compiling -mmma requiring
testcase w/ -maltivec
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51846&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
Note it is really two patches, one which fixes up the multiply case and then
one whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed, the first (major) difference shows up in 199t.cddce3.
So maybe introduced by r12-5301.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-21
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85619
--- Comment #4 from Julien ÉLIE ---
Following up on that issue. I've just checked against GCC 11 documentation.
The two points are still open.
Thanks beforehand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82798
--- Comment #5 from Julien ÉLIE ---
Following up on that bug report, I've checked GCC 11 documentation.
Only 3/, part of 5/ (-Wmultistatement-macros) and 6/ have been fixed.
Points 1/, 2/, 4/, part of 5/ (-Wreorder) and 7/ remain.
Thanks beforeha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50064
Julien ÉLIE changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83011
--- Comment #8 from Julien ÉLIE ---
"I do agree that the warning in this case is too difficult to deal with and
should be adjusted so I'm going to confirm this report on that basis."
FWIW, the same warning is still present in GCC 10.2.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83011
--- Comment #7 from Julien ÉLIE ---
*** Bug 103352 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103352
Julien ÉLIE changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103352
Bug ID: 103352
Summary: Wrong computation of -Wformat-truncation=2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-5437-20211121132234-g09a4ffb72aa-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211121 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103315
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da17c304e22ba256eba0b03710aa329115163b08
commit r12-5442-gda17c304e22ba256eba0b03710aa329115163b08
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:364539710f828851b9fac51c39033cd09aa620de
commit r12-5441-g364539710f828851b9fac51c39033cd09aa620de
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211121 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
One last comment.
A smaller hammer than -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations may be
-fno-finite-math-only which allows for the problematic NAN behavior in
Perl_do_ncmp. Allowing for the inlining, but not mungi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fef6f720a5a0a056abfa986ba870bb406ab4716
commit r12-5440-g8fef6f720a5a0a056abfa986ba870bb406ab4716
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47720
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103349
Bug ID: 103349
Summary: ICE in potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.c:9104 (sorry, unimplemented: unexpected
AST of kind omp_masked)
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-08-27 00:00:00 |2021-11-21
--- Comment #13 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> That is GCC does warning about the following case:
> struct test {
> int x = 0;
> };
> int main() {}
And you get an error with -pedantic-errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97783
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 93358, which changed state.
Bug 93358 Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] 447.dealII regresses by 15% after
r10-6025-gf5b25e15165adde1356af42e9066ab75c5b37a19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93358
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93358
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f5afb626381d19bfced30bc19cf3b03867fa6f5
commit r12-5439-g0f5afb626381d19bfced30bc19cf3b03867fa6f5
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103264
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8260767aa3b41017b075d8fde3a4065fa637db7
commit r12-5438-gc8260767aa3b41017b075d8fde3a4065fa637db7
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sun N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jacob navia from comment #3)
> As per standard c99 fabs is a generic function.
NO, you need to include tgmath.h for generic math functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
--- Comment #3 from jacob navia ---
1) The complete program is as follows:
#include
int main(void)
{
long double ld = -2.3L;
ld = fabs(ld);
}
Compiler flags
gcc -S -c -std=c99 tafbs1.c
As per standard c99 fabs is a generic fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is GCC does warning about the following case:
struct test {
int x = 0;
};
int main() {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is macro tracking which is getting in the way of emitting the warning as
NULL is from a system header, there is a dup of this bug already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99520
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I think there was a recent duplicate.
Yes I think PR 98953.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
Bug ID: 103348
Summary: Bad code generated for fabs(long double) under aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103264
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Aha, I see it. The difference with IPA modref is that we now eliminate the
loop before profile instrumentation. This leads to difference because the
function t() is never executed and thus we use guessed pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Bug ID: 103347
Summary: Non-static data member initialization is erroneously
allowed in C++03 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103264
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the test wants to verify that main() became single basic block that has
correct frequency. This is still true. What we get wrong is that the function
t() gets mismatches:
int t ()
{
int i;
int _7;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Again you misunderstood. There is a cost model for doing the multiple shift
> from the division and if says the function call will be faster, it uses
> that. There is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102720
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103346
Bug ID: 103346
Summary: ICE on template specialization via alias template with
a non-type parameter pack, and fold expression on
lambda calls
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102117
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc915b361bbc99da83fc53db7f7e0e28d0ce12c8
commit r12-5436-gdc915b361bbc99da83fc53db7f7e0e28d0ce12c8
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sun N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103345
Bug ID: 103345
Summary: missed optimization: add/xor individual bytes to form
a word
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Again you misunderstood. There is a cost model for doing the multiple shift
from the division and if says the function call will be faster, it uses that.
There is also a trade off with respect to code size t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Sounds like a cost model issue. Are you sure it is faster?
division is very very slow. And you use software emulation which is even
slower.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sounds like a cost model issue. Are you sure it is faster?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
https://godbolt.org/z/v57vxqq7E
while 64bits target works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103344
Bug ID: 103344
Summary: mulshift does not work when divisor is larger than 100
on 32 bits target.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
73 matches
Mail list logo
