https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764
Sinan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
--- Comment #1 from Sinan ---
In the giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764
Bug ID: 108764
Summary: [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 54452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54452&action=edit
Add support for machine-dependant builtins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108763
--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
I don't think it's worth a major effort. Nobody is using this kind of varargs
in D these days, it's mostly for legacy code (newer code will use template
varargs).
When I filed this bug, it was becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108763
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reading the code on I think it would need some huge work to get it working on
GDC really. Especially on aarch64. Mainly because the way var_args is defined
is something which is very much target specific. an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108763
--- Comment #2 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/druntime/src/core/vararg.d
>
> version (GNU) { /* TypeInfo-based va_arg overload unsupported */ }
>
> ...
oof.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108763
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/druntime/src/core/vararg.d
version (GNU) { /* TypeInfo-based va_arg overload unsupported */ }
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108763
Bug ID: 108763
Summary: va_arg usage in D doesn't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #11 from Chip Kerchner ---
Nevermind, using a similar example that Segher gave, it would failed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #10 from Chip Kerchner ---
Oops that should be 31 * -2, not 33.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
Bug ID: 108762
Summary: Add support for target-dependent builtins in libgccjit
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #9 from Chip Kerchner ---
Doesn't this work for powers of two (N) and signed values (for A, N and M)?
(59 - (33 * -2)) / -2 + 31 = -62 + 31 = -29
and
59 / -2 = -29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 95107, which changed state.
Bug 95107 Summary: ICE in hash_operand, at fold-const.c:3768
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108609
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|10.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108609
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:684a5a8734c4269786089f5d4ba0fbf79f190f3a
commit r10-11207-g684a5a8734c4269786089f5d4ba0fbf79f190f3a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2db200ea8a63dd580b47002d9464afc7a7b5e90e
commit r10-11208-g2db200ea8a63dd580b47002d9464afc7a7b5e90e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2965a4f925461d7814972845fe480e03856fe3fe
commit r10-11206-g2965a4f925461d7814972845fe480e03856fe3fe
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, addition and subtraction are well defined for all inputs, for unsigned
integers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> No? Take a=59 as counterexample:
>
> (a - (N*M)) / N + M = (59 - 2*30)/30 + 2 = ~0UL/30 + 2
For unsigned integers, isn't having a < N*M UB so we're free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No? Take a=59 as counterexample:
(a - (N*M)) / N + M = (59 - 2*30)/30 + 2 = ~0UL/30 + 2
but
a / N = 59/30 = 1
Integer division in C is division towards zero, almost no normal algebraic
simplificati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> If N is a power of two optimising this to a/N is valid, but for other values
> of N it is not (division is not the inverse of multiplication in C). It also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108761
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think rather section should have a secondary argument which mark as
> needing to append the function name on it ...
s/function name/decl assembly name/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108761
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think an option would be the wrong appoarch because many of the times, you
are marking a variable inside a section exactly because you want it to be part
of an "array".
I think rather section should have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107557
--- Comment #6 from Martin Uecker ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611562.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108316
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE in |ICE in maybe_gen_insn via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00a49047b504b27a8dd19d819c7bc48d54078767
commit r13-5818-g00a49047b504b27a8dd19d819c7bc48d54078767
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I am not sure this can be done in the normal case unless you know the range
> of a to be [64...INF] .
> The wrap around case might be an issue ...
> B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||10walls at gmail dot c
34 matches
Mail list logo
