https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111784
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #31 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the explanation from both of you!
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #30)
> Created attachment 56175 [details]
> prototype patch
I confirmed that this fix can make test case (#c9 + #c10) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111828
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
Peter had a check on gnu assembler (Thanks!) and found that even with -mpower10
specified it's still able to assemble HTM insns, so it means that for some
callee with power8 attributed has HTM inline asm, it can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111828
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #32 from Kewen Lin ---
> case pass, but the original test case (#c1) can't pass with this, it can't
> pass with -fstack-reuse=none + -fno-strict-aliasing + -O2 either, I think
> the original case still suffers another latent bug.
We
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |guojiufu at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
test issue, assigning to
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-07
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111828
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112707
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> > Yeah, it tested for ISA 2.04 before. That was an attempt at including 476
> > probably?
> >
> > We really shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112751
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||g...@the-meissners.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112725
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Agreed, so like this?
Yes, thanks for the prompt fix! The rs6000 part is OK for trunk!
> 2023-11-29 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/112725
> * config/
,
||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
|1
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112788
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112788
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
One workaround patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/639140.html.
We also found that with default long double format ieee128 the culprit commit
caused the libquadmath libra
|ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
|1
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot
,
||g...@the-meissners.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110011
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3)
> > Thanks for reporting, this exposes one issue that: when encoding KFmode
> > constant into toc, it uses the format for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110011
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
btw, one simple fix is under testing:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 3f129ea37d2..330c6a6fa5f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs600
|linkw at gcc dot gnu.org |juzhe.zhong at rivai
dot ai
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
I did SPEC2017 int/fp evaluation on Power10 at Ofast and an extra explicit
--param=vect-partial-vector-usage=2 (the default is 1 on Power), baseline
r14-1241 vs. new r14-1242, the results showed that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #9)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> > I did SPEC2017 int/fp evaluation on Power10 at Ofast and an extra explicit
> > --param=vect-partial-vector-usage=2 (the def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101169
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108699
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110089
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110230
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110230
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110248
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110248
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Can you extend the current hook legitimate_address_p with one default value
nullptr gimple* argument? When middle-end passes like ivopts want to query with
the constructed address reference, it can pass the gimp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110248
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> > ivopts does have code to treat ifn pointer arguments specially,
> > see get_mem_type_for_internal_fn &co. Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> I have just seen a similar ICE with a ppc64le cross-compiler. Running
>
> ~/cross/bin/ppc64le-linux-gnu-gcc
> /home/worker/buildworker/tiber-option-juggler/build/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109932
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 109858, which changed state.
Bug 109858 Summary: [14 Regression] r14-172 caused some SPEC2017 bmk to degrade
on Power
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110531
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110531
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Hao Liu from comment #2)
> > Is the warning from some static analyzer?
>
> No. I just find it maybe a bug while looking at the code.
>
> > slp should be true always (always do analyze slp), it doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110531
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
It's an arguable topic, I can't find the thread that previously some reviewers
told me it's not always good to initialize the local variable. IIRC, the case
is that I initialized one variable at the top, but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110531
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Hao Liu from comment #7)
> > int foo() {
> > bool a = true;
> > bool b;
> > if (a || b)
> > return 1;
> > b = true;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > still has the warning, it looks somethi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110531
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Hao Liu from comment #10)
> > foo is just an example for not getting inlined, the point here is extra
> > cost paid.
>
> My point is that the case is different from the original case in
> tree-ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 82255, which changed state.
Bug 82255 Summary: Vectorizer cost model overcounts cost of some vectorized
loads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110652
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110652
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
I can't reproduce this on ppc64le with both the default bootstrapping checking
option --enable-checking=yes,extra and the reported --enable-checking=release.
I'm going to test it on cfarm x86 machine.
If the er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110652
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109880
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110652
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
, ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: amacleod at redhat dot com, andy at gwentswordclub dot
co.uk
|1
Keywords|build, ice-checking,|internal-improvement
|ice-on-valid-code |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112788
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112993
Bug 112993 depends on bug 112788, which changed state.
Bug 112788 Summary: [14 regression] ICEs in fold_range, at range-op.cc:206
after r14-5972-gea19de921b01a6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112788
What|Removed
: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With selective scheduling 2 enabled by default, I failed to build gcc with
non-bootstrap on Power10, one reduced test case is listed below:
int a[];
int b
gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112995
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Initially we have:
(insn 31 6 10 2 (set (reg/v:SI 9 9 [orig:119 c ] [119])
(reg/v:SI 64 0 [orig:119 c ] [119])) "test.i":5:5 555
{*movsi_internal1}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 64 0 [orig:119 c ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112995
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> fselective-scheduling has so many issues.
ah, thanks a lot for pointing this out.
I was testing the impact of my proposed scheduling change and found this
feature
: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Test case:
#include
#define c(d, g) g, d
#define e(d, g) g, d
vector double f, n;
int m;
int k;
void j (vector double, double, double);
vector double combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113029
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
I noticed there are some existing PRs (PR107984, PR99328, PR88652, PR84842) on
verify_target_availability ICE, and in PR84842 there is a tentative patch, I
tried to make it fit with the latest trunk, but this st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113029
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #38 from Kewen Lin ---
I found this has been marked as resolved but it seems that the patch in comment
#34 hasn't been pushed, is it intended? or did I miss something that one commit
was pushed but wasn't associated to this PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #42 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #41)
> What's the "other" testcase? Do we know that doesn't suffer from the same
> uninitialized issue?
For "other" test cases, I guessed he referred to my comment #c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #43 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 56899
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56899&action=edit
Previously reduced case for comment 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112995
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 112995, which changed state.
Bug 112995 Summary: sel-sched2 ICE without checking verify_changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112995
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113100
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 106682 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106682
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60031
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113100
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
||il/gcc-patches/2024-January
||/642091.html
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112606
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109987
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fkastl at suse dot cz
--- Comment #2 from K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112606
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112751
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111480
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
Keywords|testsuite-fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113100
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> I really dislike the -mpower{8,9}-vector options, but maybe it's too late to
> remove them for this release? I'm not sure how involved/invasive that patch
> would b
gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
As discussed in PR113115, I'm going to give option power{8,9}-vector removal a
shot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Just realized that we also escalated test issue to P1, I'm going to make a
patch for the test case update.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113418
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113317
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
||2024-01-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #16 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #15)
> Umm. I just noticed this one as we now try to implement userspace live
> patching
> for ppc64le. The point of the "before" NOPs is (and always was) that they
> are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111850
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Naveen N Rao from comment #2)
> I don't really have a preference, though I tend to agree that nops before
> the local entry point aren't that useful. Even with the current approach,
> not all functi
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Inspired by PR109705, open this for tracking the revisit of vect_* checking for
Power and fix some if needed.
at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109705
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
,
||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Guessing /usr/local/bin/ld is a gnu ld? Based on what I heard before, gnu ld
has some problems on aix, people pass object files to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113507
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
I think this is related to r10-580-ge154242724b084 and this failure is expected
and a use error.
With it applied, we don't always pass -many to assembler with CHECKING_P
enabled. Actually compilers (gcc-13, gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
oops, I meant --enable-checking rather than --checking.
801 - 900 of 956 matches
Mail list logo
