https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88403
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64 started doing the ifcvt in GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #5)
> >
> > Is this a C++ standard defect? There is no inline definition for classes and
> > templates that allow multiple definit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #13 from Kito Cheng ---
FYI: PR for riscv-gnu-toolchain:
https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain/pull/1501
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #13 from Deepthi H ---
Test logs ::
:~/$ big_100k_var=$(printf "%0*d" 10 0)
Host gcc binary (Without fix)::
:~/$ gcc a.c -DA=$big_100k_var -DB=$big_100k_var
gcc: fatal error: cannot execute ‘/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/11/cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
--- Comment #3 from Jamie Bainbridge ---
Thank you for the speedy response, confirmation, and workaround.
I did not think to check if error() was standard or not. Good point.
No problems on prioritisation or even disregarding this. When behavi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
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=115739
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #12 from Kito Cheng ---
Qemu has provide two option to fill up all-one to agnostic policy:
rvv_ta_all_1s and rvv_ma_all_1s*, I guess we could enable that by default in
riscv-gnu-toolchain to discover more potential bugs.
* qemu-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Lockal from comment #6)
> 2) Specifically clang dislikes calls to host code from device code
THERE IS NO device or host code in libstdc++. That in itself a hack on how
cuda/ROCm are hacked on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
--- Comment #9 from Lockal ---
Sam James, that's a separate issue - https://bugs.gentoo.org/935314
I modified my /etc/clang/gentoo-hardened.cfg to contain:
-Xarch_host -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
and it works fine, except it does not work and fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Ah, but you're using Clang. But for Clang, we do the same sort of thing:
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/sys-devel/clang-common/clang-common-18.1.8.ebuild#n246
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
--- Comment #6 from Lockal ---
Oops, did not expect that someone already reported this to llvm/llvm-project.
This was noticed as an issue of ROCm, not CUDA. Did not try CUDA, probably
won't work with gcc-14 due to multiple reasons (starting wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115723
--- Comment #13 from edison ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #11)
> The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:286cda3461d6f5ce7d911d3f26bd4975ea7ea11d
>
> commit r15-1745-g286cda3461d6f5ce7d911d3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115741
Bug ID: 115741
Summary: [15] RISC-V: ICE in vectorizable_load, at
tree-vect-stmts.cc:11524
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115740
Bug ID: 115740
Summary: gcc-14.1.1: __glibcxx_assert_fail const-evaluation
breaks clang/hip device code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://inbox.sourceware.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115469
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115469
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c90e785bb6fde02cc009f296332a1469fcc1261a
commit r15-1761-gc90e785bb6fde02cc009f296332a1469fcc1261a
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
Bug ID: 115739
Summary: Building cross-compiler to sparc-wrs-vxworks fails
since r15-1594-g55947b32c38a40
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115738
Bug ID: 115738
Summary: Analyzer misses printf-via-function pointer for
-Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115737
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
ASM name can be gotten via DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115737
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115737
Bug ID: 115737
Summary: __builtin_printf fools analyzer's
-Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Analyzer is sensitive to|Analyzer is sensitive to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115736
Bug ID: 115736
Summary: Analyzer is sensitive to printf argument for
-Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
This is especially interesting as
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Static-Analyzer-Options.html#index-Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler
-> https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/479.html specifically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
Bug ID: 115735
Summary: Analyzer misses trivial syslog() call in signal
handler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115526
--- Comment #11 from Andreas K. Huettel ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 58549 [details]
> > Proposed patch
>
> Can someone please regression test the attached pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115716
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose the problem is that we do not detect too many template parameters
here:
template
struct S {
template
struct N { };
};
template<>
template // bad
struct S::N { };
while clang++ says:
q.C:8:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115734
Bug ID: 115734
Summary: Missed optimization: carry chains with __builtin_addc
missed except on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115733
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> > In this case, the second load is conditional on the first load mask, which
> > means it's already done an AND.
> > And crucially inverting it means you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115733
Bug ID: 115733
Summary: [avr] Improve __memx address handling
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk. I think I'll backport the fix to 14 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c847dcf94499da62e5a28921b404e6e561645d99
commit r15-1759-gc847dcf94499da62e5a28921b404e6e561645d99
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> If you're looking at this, could you also look at Fortran's way
> of handling things, for example the test cases
That was my intention to make sure fortran testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
If you're looking at this, could you also look at Fortran's way
of handling things, for example the test cases
subroutine foo(a)
implicit none
real, dimension(:,:), contiguous, intent(out) :: a
a = a +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52d71b6b1f0f465a6cf064f61b22fc99453ec132
commit r15-1758-g52d71b6b1f0f465a6cf064f61b22fc99453ec132
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52d71b6b1f0f465a6cf064f61b22fc99453ec132
commit r15-1758-g52d71b6b1f0f465a6cf064f61b22fc99453ec132
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105477
--- Comment #3 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
Commit r15-1579-g792f97b44ffc5e improves the generated code:
test:
bne a2,zero,.L2
mv a1,a0
.L2:
mv a0,a1
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99000
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nathan at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115732
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note many (if not most these days), armv8.x-a and armv9-a SoCs don't have
aarch32 (and thumb) support even in EL0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115732
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alex Rønne Petersen from comment #1)
> While here, I also noticed that GCC is missing a fair amount of post-v8
> architecture definitions that LLVM has:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115732
Alex Rønne Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |driver
--- Comment #1 from Alex R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115732
Bug ID: 115732
Summary: Arm32 architecture definitions for v8+ appear to have
wrong FPU/SIMD defaults
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66564
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch submission for r0-123991:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2013-June/365035.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728
--- Comment #4 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
(In reply to ak from comment #3)
> The constexpr asm support is in trunk. It supports templates.
>
>
> >The second is I want finer grain control over marking memory regions as
> >needing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115730
--- Comment #3 from Igor Anferov ---
Thank you Andrew! Thank you for providing the attribute name, I was trying to
find something similar, but failed to find
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html page
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66564
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor_anferov at icloud dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115730
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58552
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58552&action=edit
testcase
Next time please either put the testcase inline or attach it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728
--- Comment #2 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think there's (pending?) support to allow the asm text to be generated by
> constexpr evaluation. Not sure if that will help.
I would have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> I reckon it's not something we can fix/implement in a point release of GCC
> 14, but hopefully for 15...
Is this a C++ standard defect? There is no inline definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115731
Bug ID: 115731
Summary: Coroutine lambda type is incomplete when selecting
promise constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: C++-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115729
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #11 from Robin Dapp ---
> I believe it is VSETVL PASS doing the fusion, fuse all "vsetvl" according
> their
> demand field into a single "vsetvli" and put them since beginning.
Yes, and the vsetvl fusion is very useful here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #9)
> We already merge with operand[0], just the TU is missing as far as I can
> tell.
>
> I'm seeing the following output with my patch:
>
> vsetivlizero,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #9 from Robin Dapp ---
We already merge with operand[0], just the TU is missing as far as I can tell.
I'm seeing the following output with my patch:
vsetivlizero,8,e16,mf4,tu,ma
vle16.v v1,0(a1)
vmv.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
I think we should include operands[0] as the "merge/maskoff" operand which we
need to depend on and use TU for vec_set pattern
Take ARM for example:
(define_expand "vec_set"
[(match_operand:VALL_F16 0 "regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115716
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I have no idea how to fix this one.
The problem is that the DImode move is being expanded into 8 x QImode loads
from memx, and there is no way to do stuff similar to PR115726 because we do
not have movdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115730
Bug ID: 115730
Summary: False positive dangling-reference warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #7 from Robin Dapp ---
I checked. It looks like qemu indeed always implicitly uses TU for vmv.s.x
regardless of the actual setting. This behavior masks the bug here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
I had a bug in the benchmark, I forgot to set taskset,
These are the correct ones:
++---+-+-+
| NEEDLE | scalar 1x | vect| memchr |
++---+-+--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115729
Bug ID: 115729
Summary: case label does not reduce to an integer constant
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115726
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||saaadhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728
Bug ID: 115728
Summary: Feature Request: inline assembly improvements for C++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 01.07.2024 um 12:10 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629
>
> --- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88236
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115726
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115726
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53305588cfbf74604bafcc27902e1eded5677ae6
commit r12-10591-g53305588cfbf74604bafcc27902e1eded5677ae6
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88236
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53305588cfbf74604bafcc27902e1eded5677ae6
commit r12-10591-g53305588cfbf74604bafcc27902e1eded5677ae6
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88236
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:743575bfc6cfb3520047bddf969f880455d581b1
commit r13-8882-g743575bfc6cfb3520047bddf969f880455d581b1
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115726
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:743575bfc6cfb3520047bddf969f880455d581b1
commit r13-8882-g743575bfc6cfb3520047bddf969f880455d581b1
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115726
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7249b3cdc16ae85bcfeb63510b6e5cb7f4a43adb
commit r14-10367-g7249b3cdc16ae85bcfeb63510b6e5cb7f4a43adb
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88236
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7249b3cdc16ae85bcfeb63510b6e5cb7f4a43adb
commit r14-10367-g7249b3cdc16ae85bcfeb63510b6e5cb7f4a43adb
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #6 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #5)
> > zvl128b => GOOD.
> > vec_set_vnx8hi_0:
> > vl1re16.v v1,0(a1)
> > vsetivlizero,1,e16,m1,ta,ma
> > vmv.s.x v1,a2
> > vs1r.v
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
