https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115551
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
> Thus we need some range info to do this optimization.
Good point.
It seems as if for c1 << (c2 * a + c3), C requires a >= -c3/c2 (read as float
division; c2 ≠ 0)
And the suggested optimization requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114413
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46bb4ce4d30ab749d40f6f4cef6f1fb7c7813452
commit r15-1467-g46bb4ce4d30ab749d40f6f4cef6f1fb7c7813452
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115462
--- Comment #4 from Hu Lin ---
Created attachment 58470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58470&action=edit
A short case
I tested the file with
1) -Ofast -flto -march=skylake-avx512 -mfpmath=sse -funroll-loops
2) -O2 -march=n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The daily bump in the morning of Friday, June 14,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=028cd77db322d21312680c9a0a7c30565854f577
shows the segmentation fault, so the culprit comment must have happe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #14 from Andi Kleen ---
Latest patchkit is here, but stalled due to lack of reviewers:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/653319.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115308
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115342
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115475
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'Neill ---
This failure also appears when compiling glibc 2.39 with rv64gcv_zvl512b and
rv64gcv_zvl1024b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by YunQiang Su :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bea447a2982f3094aa3423b5045cea929f4f4700
commit r15-1466-gbea447a2982f3094aa3423b5045cea929f4f4700
Author: Collin Funk
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115522
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #7 from Jian
วงเงินสินเชื่อพร้อมใช้เสริมสภาพคล่องสำหรับบริษัท
ทุกขนาดและโรงงานอุตสาหกรรม
อนุมัติสูงสุด 10,000,000 บาท
🔸เอกสารไม่ยุ่งยาก
🔸ไม่ต้องมีคนค้ำหรือหลักทรัพย์ ผ่านการอนุมัติ รับเงินทันที
#สอบถามข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้ที่
▫️โทร : 0908863804 (คุณ สรวิชญ์)
▫️ ไอดีไลน์ : ptery9992
** การ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115462
Hu Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lin1.hu at intel dot com
--- Comment #3 from H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115551
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
--- Comment #16 from Collin Funk ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #15)
> -Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
I thought I used the correct Autoconf version, but I guess n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115552
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So basically since main writes via a double type but then spookyhash_short
reads via a uint64_t type there is an alias violation.
Using an union to change the pointer type does not change there is an alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114759
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Patch for item 3. submitted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655164.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
--- Comment #14 from Collin Funk ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> But the crate vs create needs fixing still.
Oops. Sorry, I thought a correct patch here was being used not mine. If I had
known I would have submitted a fixed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115553
Bug ID: 115553
Summary: Memory leak in openmp.cc's gfc_free_expr_list -
gfc_expr not freed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0530884fbf49cc81119d66de7e4a48b47172ed4c
commit r13-8857-g0530884fbf49cc81119d66de7e4a48b47172ed4c
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115390
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 115390, which changed state.
Bug 115390 Summary: Bogus -Wuninitialized warning when using CHARACTER(*)
argument in BIND(C) function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115390
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25860fd2a674373a6476af5ff0bd92354fc53d06
commit r15-1455-g25860fd2a674373a6476af5ff0bd92354fc53d06
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115552
Bug ID: 115552
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and above when strict-aliasing with
uint128 and double
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115390
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:954f9011c4923b72f42cc6ca8460333e7c7aad98
commit r15-1449-g954f9011c4923b72f42cc6ca8460333e7c7aad98
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
At first it looked very weird that we need 50 (or so) instructions to expand
;; MEM [(short int *)&a] = vect_cst__21;
but then I realized that all the hoops we jump through are due to possible
misalignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109150
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #4)
> The if-condition will have trouble *for now* with `Leopard`-like types
What trouble? I don't care if there's some confusing deleted assignment, I care
that t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109150
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think we're on the same page at all.
I'm intending to use the trait to mean that the assignment is known to call no
operation that is not trivial, as defined in the standard today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> With this patch:
So, would this approach be acceptable?
If so, I can put effort into doing a proper submission.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109150
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115551
Bug ID: 115551
Summary: [missed optimization] "c1 << (a + c2)" not optimized
into "(c1 << c2) << a"
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #30 from Chris Hall ---
godbolt shows that gcc v9.1 -O3 generates:
: 8d 04 3f lea(%rdi,%rdi,1),%eax
0003: d1 ff sar$1,%edi
0005: 48 98 cltq
0007: 48 63 d7 movslq %edi,%rdx
000A: c3 ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109150
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we can use this condition:
const bool __load_outside_loop =
#if __has_builtin(__is_trivially_constructible) \
&& __has_builtin(__is_trivially_assignable)
__is_trivially_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by YunQiang Su :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8088374a868aacab4dff208ec3e3fde790a1d9a3
commit r15-1446-g8088374a868aacab4dff208ec3e3fde790a1d9a3
Author: YunQiang Su
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #18 from YunQiang Su ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654956.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115550
Bug ID: 115550
Summary: [coroutines] Reference to reference in promise
constructor template argument corresponding to
coroutine *this
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109150
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another example of how the optimization is non-conforming, as I just
rediscovered:
#include
#include
struct X {
int i = 0;
X& operator=(int ii)
{
i = ii + 1;
return *this;
}
};
int ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
I would just git bisect instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> > Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115453
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||collin.funk1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115543
--- Comment #3 from Sergey ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> That is not a bug, DW_TAG_call_site_parameter is emitted only when it has
> something relevant to say (like, what value has been passed). If it isn't
> known how to re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;
> h=097bc0aebaed58c11c738ea61da723cca950e5b1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115549
Bug ID: 115549
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl
common’ structure, have ‘error_mark’ in
common_handle_aligned_attribute, at
c-family/c-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86754
Bug 86754 depends on bug 90076, which changed state.
Bug 90076 Summary: Polymorphic Allocate on Assignment Memory Leak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90076
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90076
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=097bc0aebaed58c11c738ea61da723cca950e5b1
the reproducer still runs fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90076
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbb718175d7df89b957b316ba2f5fbea5d21b2b1
commit r15-1434-gdbb718175d7df89b957b316ba2f5fbea5d21b2b1
Author: Andre Vehreschild
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is always good if you're testing on x86_64 to test such tests with
make check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{-m32/-mno-mmx/-mno-sse,-m32/-msse2,-m64\}
dg.exp='pr105109.c c23-tag-enum-*.c'"
or sim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::random_shuffle was removed from the C++ standard years ago, precisely
because it uses low quality randomness. So it's not a high priority to fix
something that is no longer even in the standard, becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
--- Comment #10 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, I looked at the CI before submitting and saw the three passing tests,
not realizing that the fourth was stilling running. I will fix this soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #11 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I realized this ticket hadn't been updated in a while. Late in development for
gcc-14 I realized sve simdclone usage was leading to a regression on a
benchmark, I couldn't get to the bottom of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115535
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115507
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96992
--- Comment #3 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Second version of patch. Now also working for negative strides:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-June/060592.html
Waiting for review.
66 matches
Mail list logo
