https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111362
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:feb23a37e6142016c3463aa3be3e900d45bc3ea5
commit r14-3915-gfeb23a37e6142016c3463aa3be3e900d45bc3ea5
Author: Pan Li
Date: Wed Sep 13 11:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111398
Bug ID: 111398
Summary: GCC should warn if a struct with flexible array member
is declared static or onstack
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111303
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d8bc560b6ab7f3153db23ffb37157528e5b2c9a
commit r14-3913-g8d8bc560b6ab7f3153db23ffb37157528e5b2c9a
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think what you're describing or looking for is something completely
different, which might be useful but is not what is present today.
The libstdc++-v3/scripts/check_compile script cannot be turned into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The fact nobody has tried to use it in 10+ years makes me think it's not all
> that useful.
Only reason I haven't tried to use it is because I didn't know it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110293
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually here is the rest for the non-zero comparisons.
Note for the below case, s can be swapped around with unsigned and the CST
comparisons become unsigned comparisons too.
s < (s == CST) -> CST == 0 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to James Y Knight from comment #5)
> > Does using __builtin_is_constant_p on the union member not work?
>
> I've created a proof-of-concept patch for libc++ to support SSO strings
> during consta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #30 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi.Richard.
I understand your conern:
If we are possible have this following possible rule to fold to ELSE value in
the future:
1. (cond_len all-false a b c len bias)
2. (cond_len any mask a b c len bias) (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to AK from comment #5)
> Created attachment 55890 [details]
> GlobalModuleIndex.cpp preprocessed files
>
> Everytime the crash is in a different file. it could be just because of
> memory issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #5 from AK ---
Created attachment 55890
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55890&action=edit
GlobalModuleIndex.cpp preprocessed files
Everytime the crash is in a different file. it could be just because of memory
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110293
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55889&action=edit
Runtime test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Possibly also *gcc-multilib*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
Sayu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #5 from James Y Knight ---
> Does using __builtin_is_constant_p on the union member not work?
I've created a proof-of-concept patch for libc++ to support SSO strings during
constant evaluation. It works.
If everyone disagrees with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did you first report this to Debian also:
See for instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #3 from AK ---
gcc -v
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/riscv64-linux-gnu/13/lto-wrapper
Target: riscv64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 13.1.0-6'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111397
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks loop copy header change which allowed the warning not to happen.
The warning is about the argument of test_setjmpex. Because GCC does not
realize __builtin_frame_address cannot jump to the test_setjmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:513bfd3271e7b425e91b0a55f72c134d917e9c12
commit r11-11005-g513bfd3271e7b425e91b0a55f72c134d917e9c12
Author: Uros Bizjak
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:701b9309b687ed46188b9caeb7d88ad60b0212e5
commit r14-3910-g701b9309b687ed46188b9caeb7d88ad60b0212e5
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Tue S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111397
Bug ID: 111397
Summary: Spurious warning "'({anonymous})' is used
uninitialized" when calling a __returns_twice__
function (-Wuninitialized -O2)
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109951
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08dfde5a30ca818715e6d2bc2f2b592f8a98af77
commit r14-3909-g08dfde5a30ca818715e6d2bc2f2b592f8a98af77
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
N could be -1 which then would access out of bounds ..
I suspect if you add a check for n being negative in memoized_cut_rod the
warning will go away and a security issue is solved too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The fact nobody has tried to use it in 10+ years makes me think it's not all
that useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
Bug ID: 111396
Summary: Segfault when using -flto with libgccjit
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230912 (experimental) (g35f498d8dfc)
Tool chain built with component commits:
Repository SHA-1 hash (commit ID)
-- --
gcc 35f498d8dfc8e579e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111360
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk
Cool, thanks. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to run shellcheck[1] on
GCC's various shell scripts to catch similar mistakes? I just tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
Bug ID: 111394
Summary: Warning about uninitialized memory that is actually
initialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #1 from AK ---
oot/d2fc9f48-c166-4a9e-9868-133a1db7af88/llvm-project/build# ninja clang
check-clang
[100/845] Building CXX object
tools/clang/lib/Serialization/CMakeFiles/obj.clangSerialization.dir/GlobalModuleIndex.cpp.o
FAILED:
too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
Bug ID: 111393
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault src/gcc/toplev.cc:314
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98596
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #4 from Paul Keir ---
I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert.
Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would mean
evaluating a non-constexpr function (i.e. `ft`). ft is *cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f73d2d61a5926f42e9e5d771d23868787ef9d800
commit r14-3908-gf73d2d61a5926f42e9e5d771d23868787ef9d800
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea5abbb263315e558c876b50c9371b90ddd5e028
commit r14-3907-gea5abbb263315e558c876b50c9371b90ddd5e028
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The std::format case looks like this:
namespace x
{
inline namespace v {
namespace detail {
template struct bar;
}
template
auto make(Arg);
template
class detail::bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111271
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-13 00:00:00 |2023-9-12
--- Comment #15 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think iv-opts is changing:
(d - 1625015511) + (d - 1625015341)
into (2*d - N) which introduces an overflow ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fwrapv also allows causes the correct code to happen.
The difference with/without -fwrapv is:
_7 = _6 + -1625040257;
if (_7 <= 6)
vs
if (_6 <= 1625040263)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111392
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=111383
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111392
Bug ID: 111392
Summary: Implement omp::decl attribute support for C++
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
i=lp64d
--with-arch=rv64gc --with-tune= --with-isa-spec=20191213 'CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-O2
-mcmodel=medany' 'CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-O2-mcmodel=medany'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230912 (experimental) (g35f498d8dfc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #29 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #27)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> > But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> > that doesn't match the type system, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #28 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #27)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> > But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> > that doesn't match the type system, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
Bug ID: 111390
Summary: 'make check-compile' target is not useful
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111375
Jeremy Bennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #27 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> that doesn't match the type system, and that we know to be wrong
> in principle. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Bug ID: 111389
Summary: ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right. The _M_valptr() function compiles to something like:
return (_Value*)((char*)this + offsetof(_Hash_node_value_base, _M_storage);
In GCC 10, the offsetof expression was non-zero, specifically it w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:724e9b12ce2b06cceeb59255a5eb0f31b0a7af65
commit r12-9874-g724e9b12ce2b06cceeb59255a5eb0f31b0a7af65
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #26 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
that doesn't match the type system, and that we know to be wrong
in principle. And we'd be making it with no realistic pros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
John Drouhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at drouhard dot dev
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I saw/reported a similar bug but I can't find it right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4289f6ceefe74ea46e792692448c06197ac20c86
commit r14-3902-g4289f6ceefe74ea46e792692448c06197ac20c86
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52f65d17c85fa513887a3bb31e3c3c329d9ace58
commit r14-3903-g52f65d17c85fa513887a3bb31e3c3c329d9ace58
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1e87aee5b7023fb4f5791c6869db705e18c2705
commit r14-3901-gf1e87aee5b7023fb4f5791c6869db705e18c2705
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
> I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
> bullets (unlike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I thought I saw another bug requesting the same thing but I could not
> find it.
PR 85234 is mostly requesting the opposite way though ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887
Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:895e476f64c308dfdbf49693d0b1166c0b7733de
commit r14-3881-g895e476f64c308dfdbf49693d0b1166c0b7733de
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111388
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding:
```
if (ab.index()>=2)
__builtin_unreachable();
```
to operator->
Also fixes the issue.
C++23 would be:
[[assume(ab.index()<2)]];
(Except that does not optimize currently).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111388
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note variant can still hold neither ...
You might need to add a check for valueless_by_exception here.
But variant::index could be improved to say the only values that are valid is
[0,N],[-1]. and that will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #24)
> Heh, nice hack. :) But I guess this shows that the type checking of
> internal functions isn't as strong it should be.
>
> IMO it's wrong to pass a scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111317
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
I think the default cost model is not too bad for these simple cases. Our
emitted instructions match gimple pretty well.
The thing we don't model is vsetvl. We could ignore it under the assumption
that it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #24 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Heh, nice hack. :) But I guess this shows that the type checking of
internal functions isn't as strong it should be.
IMO it's wrong to pass a scalar else value to a vector operation.
Even i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> I wonder whether SVE/GCN have those.
Just to answer this: yeah, SVE does have both vector and predicate
SEL (vcond_mask). So the fold is use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
bullets (unlike first static_assert argument).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We might want to look into bind too:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0826r0.html#3.-implementation-experience
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
--- Comment #2 from Siarhei Volkau ---
Well what the godbolt says with -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer.
ARM:
uxthr0, r0 @ << zero extend
strhr0, [r1]
strhr0, [r2]
bx lr
ARM64:
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, as far as I know. I would also go ahead and merge the test suite patch
now as there is already a v2 fix posted. Even if it's not the correct one it
will be done soon so we should not let that block enab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #10)
> I would be OK with the riscv implementation, then we don't need to touch
> isel. Maybe a future vector extension will also help us here so we could
> just switch th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp ---
I would be OK with the riscv implementation, then we don't need to touch isel.
Maybe a future vector extension will also help us here so we could just switch
the implementation then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
So, should we support this pattern in RISC-V backend ?
Or adjust gimple-isel to generate these 4 STMTs naturally?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, I doubt we would get much below 4 instructions with riscv specifics.
A quick grep yesterday didn't reveal any aarch64 or gcn patterns for those (as
long as they are not hidden behind some pattern replacem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #7 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |14.0
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|Wrong co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
>
> --- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
> Oh. I see.
>
>
> (define_expand "@vcond_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 f
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
