https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59108|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59107|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59107&action=edit
Mostly reduced
This is as far as I got. No more includes and less 40 lines.
And yes I think it is valid (had t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Version|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The register is assigned to 0 during rename stage and then removed from the
rest of the pipeline as it has no effect otherwise. Only hw single step will
cause it to be executed. Yes it will take up a slot fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #4 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59106
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59106&action=edit
patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116702
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`MIN_EXPR , 1>` -> `a > 0` :
```
#define cst1 0
#define cst2 1
int f(int a, int b, int c)
{
int t = (c > cst1 ? c : cst1);
int t2 = (t < cst2) ? t : cst2;
return t2;
}
int f2(int a, int b, int c)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116702
Bug ID: 116702
Summary: `MIN_EXPR , 0>` can be optimized to
`a >> (BITSIZE-1)` for signed types
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is a better example where we have a secondary phiopt happening:
```
short f(int a, int b, int c)
{
int t1 = 4;
if (c < t1) return (c > -1 ? c : -1);
return t1;
}
short f1(int a, int b, int c)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to polarlinda6 from comment #3)
> For the special behavior that occurs with `A<...>::value`, I hope to
> eliminate this inconsistency.
GCC counts each instantiation of a template that happens. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116700
Bug ID: 116700
Summary: `(A > PZ) ? ABS(A) : PZ` -> `MAX(A, PZ)` where PZ is
known to be non-negative
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116699
Bug ID: 116699
Summary: factor_out_conditional_operation does not ignore
PREDICT/NOP sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116694
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`-ftemplate-depth=101` is enough here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 116520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 115866, which changed state.
Bug 115866 Summary: missed optimization vectorizing switch statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116691
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference is:
_39 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_37, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
vs
loop_len_29 = MIN_EXPR ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116691
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
`-march=rv64gcv_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs -mabi=lp64d -O3`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116690
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yunbo Ni from comment #4)
> Thanks for your kind and detailed explanation! BTW, when I change the value
> of b to 1 in line 3 and compiled this code with -O0 flag, it gets killed
> with with pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116689
Bug ID: 116689
Summary: Some simple scheduling to reduce register presure
should be done on the gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116672
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
>
> > Note GCC has an (I think undocumented) exception to the aliasing rule where
> > `void*` is allowed to alias all ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116688
Bug ID: 116688
Summary: simd attribute vs clonable function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: verify_flow_info |__builtin_return vs simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116685
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59100&action=edit
Full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116685
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-vect-cost-model fixes some of these.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115130
Bug 115130 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 116520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116520, which changed state.
Bug 116520 Summary: Multiple condition lead to missing vectorization due to
missing early break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116672
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
A better way to explain this is that earlier versions of GCC didn't optimized
based on that different pointer types can not alias each other while GCC 11
starts to understand that different pointer types don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe -munroll-only-small-loops is needed for powerpc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #13 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116681
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59098&action=edit
Reduced further and cleaned up slightly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing this ...
Note what was provided was basically an unincluded version which just happens
to be ok in this case but not always. Next time please provide the full
preprocessed source and you can compre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59097&action=edit
Compressed testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116671
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Works on the trunk:
[apinski@xeond2 test]$ ls
[apinski@xeond2 test]$ ~/upstream-gcc/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -c -x
c++-system-header string
[apinski@xeond2 test]$ ~/upstream-gcc/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for recent GCC, CONVERT and SHUFFLE should be defined as:
# define CONVERT(vector, type) __builtin_convertvector(vector.data,
type::data_type)
# define SHUFFLE(a, b, ...) __builtin_shufflevector(a.da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
On the clang not rejecting the code, there is a clang specific path used for
vector_type so that code is not used for clang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Started with r15-2331-g523836716137d0f7f4088c85752a980f5f971b36
What happens before this patch is mask_type stays mask_index for the template
argument as the de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can finish reducing this later today after I finish some other stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Bug ID: 11
Summary: [15 Regression] firefox does not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116665
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/itanium-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116662
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See/Read
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20210910131625.159525-1-ja...@redhat.com/
also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116643
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I will handle the rest as I go but I wanted to get phiopt done as it was
bugging me while I was working on it :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59083|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116658
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59083
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59083&action=edit
Reduced slightly more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116656
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Apple M1 Pro.
Considering the aarch64 darwin port has not been upstreamed yet, this should be
reported to where you got gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116654
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some of this might be expected, according to the commit message and will most
likely fixed later on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|15.0|
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116635
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the reason why setting LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT works is because
combineif rejects trapping condition early but it tries to use
match-and-simplify and with LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT set, the opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is: `-static -pie` which should remove the requirement of
`-Wl,--no-dynamic-linker` too.
Basically a (non-static) PIE binary requires using the dynamic loader to do the
relocations while a static PIE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116648
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should say I noticed this while looking into PR 116647. Fixing this will
almost definitely make PR 116647 latent though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116648
Bug ID: 116648
Summary: unswitch does not handle `if (a & b)` where a is
invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116646
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It works when y is dependent though:
```
template
void f() {
if constexpr(y<0)
{
static_assert(y<0);
}
}
auto t = &f<0>;
```
I think since it is not dependent, it ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112418
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59076
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59076&action=edit
Start of the patch
This is the start but the patch does too much for little benifit.
Example:
```
int g(int);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Joshua from comment #12)
> You can't *do* that in this environment. No relocations allowed.
you requested PIE which requires some relocations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116643
Bug ID: 116643
Summary: PHI_RESULT vs gimple_phi_result/gimple_phi_result_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: enh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Vfork returns twice.
Sounds like some missing volatile too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
vfork basically should not be used really. It has since been removed from POSIX
standard in 2008. Plus on many Linux arch, fork and vfork don't exist as system
calls; only clone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> >either modifies any data other than a variable
>of type pid_t used to store the return value from vfork()
>
> Is the case here.
That is you are modify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>either modifies any data other than a variable
of type pid_t used to store the return value from vfork()
Is the case here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(From POSIX.1) The vfork() function has the same effect as
fork(2), except that the behavior is undefined if the process
created by vfork() either modifies any data other than a variabl
501 - 600 of 4691 matches
Mail list logo
