https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9701432ff79926a5dd3303be3417e0bd0c24140b
commit r13-1376-g9701432ff79926a5dd3303be3417e0bd0c24140b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Summary|[10/11/12/13 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #15)
> Created attachment 53230 [details]
> gzipped C++ source code
>
>
> Please find attached an additional C++ test case. -O3 required this time:
>
> $ /home/dc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] tree check |[13 Regression] tree check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:618bac5b486832edd3f8eb3ada74740e389dfcb8
commit r13-1375-g618bac5b486832edd3f8eb3ada74740e389dfcb8
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #6 from Jens Maurer ---
Related clang bug: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56313
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #6 from Andy Ross ---
No, I just had a thinko (hur dur stack grows down, sigh) and jumped too quickly
once I thought I had it. All the circumstantial evidence is pointing at a
compiler bug here, but this smoking gun isn't. I'll kee
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20220630 on riscv64-linux-gnu, using binutils trunk/2.39. Not
seen in the same environment building GCC 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-01
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
--- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I detected the issue on tests/tfpif.c with the upgrade of Debian's package
gcc-snapshot from 1:20220126-1 to 1:20220630-1 (it doesn't occur on
tests/tfpif.c with gcc-snapshot 1:20220126-1). Ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Let me also file the other bug about the deconstructor for anonymous unions
> since that is a different issue.
Actually I take that back, the anonymous union ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect error for |[DR 2084] union with more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #8 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
init-regs:
(insn 13 8 17 2 (set (reg:V4SI 141)
(vec_select:V4SI (vec_concat:V8SI (reg/v:V4SI 135 [ R2 ])
(reg/v:V4SI 133 [ R0 ]))
(parallel [
function 'tst':
tfpif.c:31:9: warning: 'emax' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
31 | f2 (emax);
| ^
tfpif.c:17:11: note: 'emax' was declared here
17 | int emax;
| ^~~~
$ gcc-snapshot --versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC and ICC accept it though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang also rejects it:
:21:4: error: defaulting this default constructor would delete it after
its first declaration
S::S() = default;
^
:17:8: note: default constructor of 'S' is implicitly deleted becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ideally the middle end should optimize it. But until then, I wonder if the
front end could detect when a non-trivial ctor is just doing zero-init of every
member, and fold it early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Bug ID: 106154
Summary: Error when missing a : inside an inline-asm could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45358
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see any below accesses either.
Right before the assembler code you posted has:
sub sp, sp, #32
So
Maybe I am missing something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #3 from Andy Ross ---
Created attachment 53231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53231&action=edit
Preprocessed source file (gzipped)
Sorry, I thought I attached it with the submission. Looks like it got kicked
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #1 from Andy Ross ---
Just submitted the same code at godbolt and their "ARM64 gcc trunk" build shows
the same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Bug ID: 106153
Summary: Generated arm64 code writing below stack pointer
without updating SP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2)
> I guess that's like:
>
> C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
> C++17: both are aggregates.
> C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not (user-declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I guess that's like:
C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
C++17: both are aggregates.
C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not (user-declared constructor).
But that really shouldn't affect the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106006
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
commit r12-8531-g6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
commit r12-8530-g26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105813
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
commit r12-8529-geb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
commit r13-1371-g762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106152
Bug ID: 106152
Summary: New ICE compiling template expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Bug ID: 106151
Summary: Inconsistent optimization when defaulting aggregate vs
non-aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103693
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Bug ID: 106150
Summary: Incorrect error for defaulted anonymous union member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Bug ID: 106149
Summary: [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C had
bogus errors after r13-1366-g1eef21ccfa5988
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Bug ID: 106148
Summary: RFE: warn about =- typos
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(The original insns, before this combination.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is wrong there? It isn't obvious. You may need to show insns 188 and 199
in non-slim form, "slim" is very lossy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
commit r13-1368-g8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106084
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like a binutils bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
commit r13-1365-g6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW std::tuple_element_t<1000, tuple> takes 97% less
memory and takes 80% less time with my patch. I just need to fix a problem with
debuginfo generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Romeo ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vittorio Romeo from comment #6)
> > worthwhile to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility,
>
> No, that's not an option. Clang's is a buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vittorio Romeo from comment #6)
> worthwhile to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility,
No, that's not an option. Clang's is a built-in template, GCC's can't be (it
would require consi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #5)
> Yeah, __is_same builtin beats custom unique-id comparisons, but it is
> available only since gcc-10 so unavailable for me.
GCC has had __is_same_as since 6.1 thou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liš
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Possible implementation idea: look at state merging when building the exploded
graph: if we're merging an identical state in a loop, with no variants, then
complain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Romeo ---
Thank you, Jonathan, for looking into this. I feel like it might be worthwhile
to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility, or maybe talk to some Clang
developers and see if there can be an agreement o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
Bug ID: 106147
Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer could complain about some cases of
infinite loops and infinite recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106146
Bug ID: 106146
Summary: [instcombine] a redundant movprfx insn compare to llvm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> I'm not subscribed to fortran@ or gcc-patches@.
> Even If I subscribe to a list what good would it
> do to send an email? Someone might glance at
> it. Then what? I cannot commit as I don't use
> git (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Yeah, __is_same builtin beats custom unique-id comparisons, but it is available
only since gcc-10 so unavailable for me.
Recently I discovered this one (only works for unique types), and it is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
Bug ID: 106145
Summary: [12/13 Regression] /usr/bin/ld: libcommon.a(input.o):
copy relocation against non-copyable protected symbol
`__cxa_pure_virtual' on aarch64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I would prefer a pair of similar names involving "type at index" and "index
> of type" or something like that. Or "index to type" and "tpe to index".
Anothe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #2)
> Please consider also adding a builtin for fetching index of type in type
> list.
I am already considering it and it's one of the reasons I don't like the name
"ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Bug ID: 106144
Summary: wide_int shifted_mask() and mask() do not agree
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106114
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
>This is less likely to occur in GCC12 as less places rewrite the IL under the
>covers, but it should still be applied ot that branch just in case.
Should the bug be reopened for now then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105782
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104862
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Chris Packham from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > Please provide info about how libsanitizer end up building with GCC 11.3 and
> > MIPS64 (such a combination is not sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00193676a5a3e7e50e1fa6646bb5abb5a7b2acbb
commit r13-1362-g00193676a5a3e7e50e1fa6646bb5abb5a7b2acbb
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> But the other suggestion could be to use std::is_void_v instead (at
> least for C++17 and later), no?
Indeed :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang gives a different error, but no more helpful:
v.C:2:34: error: expected '(' for function-style cast or type construction
static_assert( std::is_void, "void is void is void" );
~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
Bug ID: 106143
Summary: Add fix-it for missing ::value on trait with
std::integral_constant base
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is in processing
x = MEM[(const struct Pair &)_11];
_47 = MEM[(const int &)&x + 4];
where we when visiting the def for 'x' continue the lookup with an
effective MEM[(const struct Pair &)_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #5 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems combine wrongly merged two vec_select instructions:
Trying 188 -> 199:
188: r343:V4SI=vec_select(vec_concat(r168:V4SI,r338:V4SI),parallel)
REG_DEAD r338:V4SI
REG_DEAD r168:V4S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #4 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced to:
#include
extern "C" void *memcpy(void *, const void *, unsigned long);
typedef __attribute__((altivec(vector__))) unsigned native_simd_type;
union {
native_simd_type V;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
