https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, as agreed. Though today I probably won't be able to do much due to private
matters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112665
--- Comment #1 from 신재형 ---
(In reply to 신재형 from comment #0)
> The provided C code includes a main function and a helper function i(),
> along with a struct definition and several global variables. The code
> primarily involves conditional logi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112665
Bug ID: 112665
Summary: I am getting incorrect output values at optimization
level 2 in GCC for the s390x architecture.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, it reproduces (a local patch hides the issue, the bisected rev. likely just
exposes an existing issue).
We're optimizing this to
[local count: 16873086]:
[local count: 105119324]:
# c_31 = PH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
>
> Rich Felker changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #1)
> Confirmed, smaller example:
>
> program main
> implicit none
> integer, parameter :: n=5
> character(len=6), dimension(n,n) :: a
> character(len=6), dimension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
--- Comment #22 from Haochen Jiang ---
A quick workaround would be not appending -mno-avx10.1-xxx into -march=native.
And it should work after my experiment. However, I am finding a better way to
do that.
The real problem seems like the AVX10 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112598
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d13e59b86c5cbeec6135ada3f6dc983289cac610
commit r14-5748-gd13e59b86c5cbeec6135ada3f6dc983289cac610
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86286
Julian Waters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tanksherman27 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
Confirmed, smaller example:
program main
implicit none
integer, parameter :: n=5
character(len=6), dimension(n,n) :: a
character(len=6), dimension(n) :: r1
integer :: i
logical, dimension(n,n) :: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111488
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111796
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112611
--- Comment #3 from Jiahao Xu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jiahao Xu from comment #1)
> > Due to some issues with the implementation of the [x]vshuf instruction in
> > LA464, there is a problem where, when the index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111815
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111815
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66a4094112c446ec16733c687e4b3813519da66b
commit r11-11108-g66a4094112c446ec16733c687e4b3813519da66b
Author: Maciej W.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111815
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31bc12b6bb3fd56a65d1f73dcc4fcfad6486361c
commit r12-9998-g31bc12b6bb3fd56a65d1f73dcc4fcfad6486361c
Author: Maciej W. R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112647
--- Comment #2 from gyumin ---
Thank you for your kind reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
--- Comment #21 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> The use of __builtin_ia32_2intersectd128 in avx512vp2intersectvlintrin.h has:
> #pragma GCC target("avx512vp2intersect,avx512vl,no-evex512")
>
> While i386-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111815
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c23fa691d23d9f3d57ac7feece6fbbb7236c563
commit r13-8089-g2c23fa691d23d9f3d57ac7feece6fbbb7236c563
Author: Maciej W. R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111815
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56ff988e6be3fdba70cad86d73ec0038bc3b6b5a
commit r14-5745-g56ff988e6be3fdba70cad86d73ec0038bc3b6b5a
Author: Maciej W. Rozycki
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
--- Comment #4 from gooncreeper ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105496 ***
Apologies.
Though, how are you so good at finding duplicates? What's the secret?(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110158
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
It seems the comment #4 testcase is still rejected on trunk after/despite
r14-4334-g28adad7a32ed92?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gooncreeper from comment #2)
> Though, how are you so good at finding duplicates? What's the secret?
Everyone says I have bugzilla memorized but I don't, I am just really code at
doing keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
--- Comment #2 from gooncreeper ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105496 ***
Apologies.
Though, how are you so good at finding duplicates? What's the secret?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||goon.pri.low at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112664
Bug ID: 112664
Summary: missed-optimization: extra comparison when reordering
statements
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||goon.pri.low at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|missed-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112663
Bug ID: 112663
Summary: missed-optimization: sum of 1 to n
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112531
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-21
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112662
Bug ID: 112662
Summary: missed-optimization: loop increment until wrap
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #7)
> I think there is middle-end issue here:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/maxval_char_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm GCC rejects:
```
struct foo{
foo(const int *new_mac);
};
typedef int t[1];
void g(){
foo f(t{ 0xFC});
}
```
While clang, MSVC all accepts it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
Bug ID: 112661
Summary: [14] RISC-V ICE: in duplicate_and_interleave, at
tree-vect-slp.cc:8025 with maxval_char_3.f90 vlen256b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gooncreeper from comment #4)
> I am not quite testing on the trunk build but I also believe modulo
Yes but only powers of 2. Due to the conversions to using &.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE: |[12/13/14 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112651
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
--- Comment #4 from gooncreeper ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> >Note: this happens for all operators, not just addition!
>
> Actually it is just addition with a constant on the trunk.
> ```
> int g(int v, int b) {
> if (v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112648
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So maybe
> ```
> (simplify
> (cond (eq @0 INTEGER_CST@1) zero_p (plus@3 @0 INTEGER_CST@2))
> @3
> )
> ```
Whoops I forgot the check `wi::to_wide(@1) == -wi::t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
--- Comment #7 from JuzheZhong ---
I think there is middle-end issue here:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/maxval_char_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (internal compiler error: in
duplicate_and_interl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112660
Bug ID: 112660
Summary: missed-optimization: combine shifts when shifted out
bits are known 0
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112659
Bug ID: 112659
Summary: missed-optimization: if (exp) return exp; else return
0;
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is converted to a csel on aarch64 so it is either ifcvt.cc rejecting the
issue or a tuning issue with the x86_64 backend.
x86_64:
```
IF-THEN-JOIN block found, pass 1, test 2, then 3, join 4
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Bug ID: 112658
Summary: ICE: finish_expr_stmt , at cp/semantics.cc:892
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112653
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
PR82898 testcases seems to be about type based alias analysis. However PTA
should be useable here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
Bug ID: 112657
Summary: missed optimization: cmove not used with multiple
returns
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112653
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
See PR82898 especially...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
clang does not emit BTF FUNC nor FUNC_PROTO entries for inlined functions. So
the fix is probably to not emit CTF_K_FUNCTION entries that have not been
handled in the FOR_EACH_FUNCTION loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Miro Palmu from comment #5)
> If you use libstdc++ on clang these will not compile but with different
> errors.
The examples in comment 4 do compile using libstdc++ on clang, if you use
libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112406
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bbc7f4ef6329df62146fd6d0da5f30750cc72b4
commit r14-5697-g2bbc7f4ef6329df62146fd6d0da5f30750cc72b4
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Tue No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112562
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7c1ee1cfdea228f79ba9d495b407f3689efc608
commit r14-5693-gc7c1ee1cfdea228f79ba9d495b407f3689efc608
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112651
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
The btf_collect_datasec function in btf2out.cc traverses the cgraph and, for
each function, transforms its CTF_K_FUNCTION into a pair of BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO
and BTF_KIND_FUNC. But if the function is inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #1 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Smaller reproducer:
static void log_event(const char *event_name, void *dev_ptr)
{
}
void lala ()
{
log_event ("foobar", ((void *)0));
}
Note that the FUNC_PROTO for log_event seems to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
Bug ID: 112656
Summary: btf: function prototypes generated with name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
ack, np.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That one seems to be too large IMHO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
We can add the test case at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112526#c14 too if it's fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112655
Bug ID: 112655
Summary: analyzer/infinite-loop.cc:75: Possible performance
problem ?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
Brian Witte changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=576
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> That is because the code is GNU C90 and not C++ .
I've used gcc, not g++. But this fails even with -std=gnu90.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112652
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strange. On cfarm211 which is
SunOS gcc-solaris11 5.11 11.3 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
the test passes.
/export/home/jakub/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/literals2.C:7:9: warning:
multi-character cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112619
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56663&action=edit
gcc14-pr112619.patch
If it is ok for TRY_CATCH_EXPR to have second argument be something other than
STATEMENT_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=576
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #5)
> The -frounding-math option should solve the issue on this particular
> example. But on my machine, ld gives an "undefined reference to `_up'" error.
That is beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=576
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112619
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
> postings this happens everywhere:
>
> +XPASS: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
--- Comment #5 from Miro Palmu ---
I have been trying to figure out where exactly the bug is and these are my
findings.
> Or:
>
> #include
>
> consteval void bar() {
> auto _ = [](std::string s) { return s; }({});
> }
>
> int main() {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112599
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56626|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112598
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56625|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
--- Comment #6 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Whoops, got the author/committer mixed up. I meant to refer to Juzhe's fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
The use of __builtin_ia32_2intersectd128 in avx512vp2intersectvlintrin.h has:
#pragma GCC target("avx512vp2intersect,avx512vl,no-evex512")
While i386-builtin.def does:
BDESC (0, OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX512VP2I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56624|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112563
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, shall we go with
--- libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h.jj
2023-11-15 12:45:17.359586776 +0100
+++ libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h 2023-11-21
18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56615|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] failure to |[14 regression] including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #4 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
I think the problem here may be that OP's kernel doesn't understand BPF V4
instructions, and the program above has been compiled with them (movs). Try to
use -mcpu=v3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
The instruction failing validation seems to be:
e0: bf a4 00 00 00 00 00 00 mov %r4,%r10
Which is a regular MOV instruction with zeroes in imm32 and offset16. It has
SRC=X. So I don't unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110639
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
> If 'a' is already present on the device (e.g. 'omp target enter data
> map(a)'), it works.
This applies to both the comment 0 example where only a section of 'a' is
mapped start > 0 and for the comment 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #2 from Brian Witte ---
$ ./pretty_uname.sh
System Information
--
Kernel Name: Linux
Node Name: debian
Kernel Release:6.5.0-4-amd64
Kernel Version:#1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.5.10-1 (2023-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #1 from Brian Witte ---
Created attachment 56658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56658&action=edit
this is a *.tmp.s file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
Bug ID: 112654
Summary: bpf: bpf program load failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112651
Jeremy Bennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RISC-V Vector |RISC-V Vector new option
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
