On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:35 PM Jennifer Schmitz via Gcc
wrote:
>
> We are working on improving codegen for the following test cases (for all
> integer types T):
>
> T foo (T x, T y)
> {
> T diff = x - y;
> return x > y ? diff : -diff;
> }
>
> T bar (T x, T y)
> {
> T diff1 = x - y;
> T d
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is now in
stage4, open for regression and documentation fixes only.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 32 + 6
P2
> Am 27.12.2024 um 02:50 schrieb Trampas Stern via Gcc :
>
> I am doing embedded development on an arm cortex-m processor using
> arm-none-eabi-gcc. I have run into a bug where GDB is showing that the
> code executing is code from a function that is not used. The code is
> removed as it is n
> Am 30.11.2024 um 08:19 schrieb Mateusz Guzik via Gcc :
>
> Tested with gcc 14.2 and the Linux kernel compiling for amd64. This is
> at Linux next-20241127. This was already the case on gcc 13 (no idea
> about earlier versions), I tested 14 to see if the problem is gone.
>
> In the particula
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 1:32 PM Kamil Belter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:58 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:56 AM Kamil Belter via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wou
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:56 AM Kamil Belter via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to set branch prediction based on .gcda files (I know I
> could have it automatically with -fprofile-use, but with my specific
> use case I can't do it).
>
> I've tried to use gcov-dump but I can't find any sp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:29 AM Georg-Johann Lay via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Consider the following RTL peephole from avr.md:
>
> (define_peephole2 ; avr.md:5387
>[(match_scratch:QI 3 "d")
> (parallel [(set (match_operand:ALL4 0 "register_operand" "")
> (ashift:AL
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is now in
stage3, open for general bugfixing.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 26- 5
P2 636+ 15
P3
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:21 PM Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 11/13/24 15:12, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello world,
> >>
> >> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
> which states (with a bit of an overabundance of
> clarity) that, in Fortran, it is possible special-case
> complex multipli
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 29 October 2024 16:46
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas
> > Schwinge ; Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:55 AM Anton Blanchard via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think gcc is relying on undefined behaviour with the vcompress instruction.
> Unfortunately my test case isn't reproducing on mainline, but gcc looks to
> use the fields between the last mask selected field and vl while s
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 1:52 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 21 October 2024 12:45
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge ; Jakub
> > Jelinek
&
> Am 26.10.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Iain Sandoe :
>
> Hi,
>
> The background here is that I made a trial implementation of P1494r4 -
> std::observable() - and want to produce testcases.
>
> —— so …..
>
> I am looking for either examples where GCC produces time-travel optimisation
> (or alter
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:48 PM David Brown via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2024 16:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 15:00, Mateusz Guzik via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >> I understand the stock behavior of pilling variables on may happen to
> >> improve cache usage.
> >>
> >> Howe
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 17 October 2024 19:18
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> > Subject: RE: [RFC] Enabling SVE
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 16 October 2024 13:05
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading t
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:14 PM Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote:
>
> One issue that showed up as test failures with a default of -std=gnu23 is
> that -std=gnu23 -Wtraditional produces a "traditional C rejects ISO C
> style function definitions" warning for function definitions with empty
> parentheses,
it as
> error_mark_node. For the above case, since POLY_INT_CST appears on dead-code
> path, streaming
> POLY_INT_CST with higher degree than accel's NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS would be
> "harmless". And detect invalid POLY_INT_CST's in expand pass (if it survives
> till this
> point), and emit above error, but not sure if that'd be the right place ?
> This is done in p-283-4.txt.
>
> All the three patches fix UNRESOLVED tests due to POLY_INT_CST streaming
> error in libgomp testsuite with -mcpu=generic+sve2.
> (Altho it introduces a strange FAIL for data-5.f90, which I am investigating).
> I would be grateful for suggestions on how to proceed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Kulkarni
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is still
in stage1 but will transition to bugfixing stage3 mode beginning
Monday November 18th.
I have done a sweep over regressions not UNCONFIRMED or WAITING
or SUSPENDED and adjusted priorities away from P3 (no priority).
I woul
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 1:47 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote:
>
> I haven't found anything in my digging, so I'd like to ask if anyone knows
> of any mechanism in GCC for conducting peephole optimization on generated
> code. I can imagine doing this as a pass over the generated code from
> within the
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 01.10.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 01.10.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > the
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > the unit tests are my long-standing pain point of
> > excessive compiler memory usage and compile times. I
> Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
>
> Hi,
>
> the unit tests are my long-standing pain point of
> excessive compiler memory usage and compile times. I've always worked around
> the memory usage problem by splitting the test matrix into multiple
> translations (with di
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:50 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> (This is orthogonal to yesterday's
> "GCC 15: nvptx '-mptx=3.1' multilib variants are deprecated".)
>
> We'd like to raise nvptx code generation from PTX ISA 6.0, sm_30 "Kepler"
> to default PTX ISA 7.3, sm_52 "Maxwell", therefore
> Am 16.09.2024 um 14:45 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>
> On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 13:13, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Git supports signing commits with a GPG ke
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> Git supports signing commits with a GPG key, and more recently (since
> Git 2.34) also started supporting signing with an SSH key. The latter
> is IMHO much easier to set up, because anybody who can push to the GCC
> repo already h
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 1:17 PM Ghorban M. Tavakoly via Gcc
wrote:
>
> >> Is there any change to have some LTO progress indicator information in
> upstream GCC output? Do I need to report a bug?
> Is there any chance ... (sorry for typo)
You can add -Q to the command line which makes GCC output s
> Am 07.09.2024 um 17:56 schrieb Jeff Law :
>
>
>
> On 9/7/24 1:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> Am 06.09.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Andrew Carlotti :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working on optimising assignments to the
> Am 07.09.2024 um 07:27 schrieb Jeremy Rifkin :
>
>
>>
>> This is why I said what is the a same file if you can't rely on inodes
>> working?
>
> I don't have a good answer for such a case. Of course, no matter how one
> approaches #pragma once there will be cases that aren't handled.
>
> Am 06.09.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Andrew Carlotti :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on optimising assignments to the AArch64 Floating-point Mode
> Register (FPMR), as part of our FP8 enablement work. Claudio has already
> implemented FPMR as a hard register, with the intention that FP8 intrinsic
> fu
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 6:12 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
>
> On 8/25/24 03:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:19 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >> Trying to use the value-range interface and functions I am running
> >> into that ICE when using in
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 1:49 PM Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
>
> Hi GCC
>
> I wanted to report one or more bugs, unfortunately they are not consistently
> reproducable, which is odd. It happens when compiling the chromium part of
> qtwebengine after the update to gcc 14 and during development for
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:19 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Trying to use the value-range interface and functions I am running
> into that ICE when using invert().
>
> From what the sources suggest, invert() computes the complement of
> the current set (the union of finitely many intervals).
>
>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:46 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Am 21.08.24 um 11:31 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:19 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, in an RTL optimization pass I would like to
> >> perform a transformation
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:19 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Hi, in an RTL optimization pass I would like to
> perform a transformation like from old code:
>
>[bb 1]
>if (condA);; insn1
> goto label_1;
>
>[bb 2]
>if (cond_B) ;; insn2
> goto label_2;
>
> to new cod
On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 3:56 AM Amit Hiremath wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to add custom single precision floating point sine, cosine, exp
> instructions to risc-v gnu tool chain, and I have designed hardware for
> this. I was going through tutorials on how to add custom instructions at:
> https://
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:30 AM Sam James via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> This came out of some discussion with Arsen and prompted by some other
> comments on IRC.
>
> At the moment, during release time, maintainer-scripts/branch_changer.py
> is run by release managers and causes a large amount of bugma
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:12 PM Ilija Tovilo via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> I'm new here. I read the mailing list policy, but please correct me if
> I'm doing anything wrong.
>
> In our C codebase, we're using a fair amount of static inline
> __attribute__((always_inline)). This is arguably no
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 6:51 PM
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Summar
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:46 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> Since the RC I've fixed a few 14/15 C++ regressions with extremely safe
> patches, and wonder what you think about pushing them to the branch at this
> point:
>
> 115583, 115986, 115561
>
> Sorry these came so late.
Those are all f
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:36 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am working on enabling offloading to nvptx from AAarch64 host. As mentioned
> on wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading#Running_.27make_check.27),
> I ran make check-target-libgomp on AAarch64 host (and no GPU) with
hing written down in code or e-mail
from your side that shows progress there - I hope we
can sort this out later today.
Richard.
>
> Thor
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:26 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we're having our bi-week
The GNU Compiler Collection version 11.5 has been released.
GCC 11.5 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 11 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 11.4 with more than 157 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This is also the last release from the GCC 11 branch,
> Am 18.07.2024 um 16:20 schrieb Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
> :
>
> The tsvc tests take just too long on simulators, particularly if there is
> little or no vectorization of the test because of compiler limitations,
> target limitations, or the chosen options. Having
> 151 tests time out at a
> Am 15.07.2024 um 20:07 schrieb William Seurer via Gcc :
>
> On 7/12/24 7:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>> The first release candidate for GCC 11.5 is available from
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.5.0-RC-20240712/
>>
>> and shor
The first release candidate for GCC 11.5 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.5.0-RC-20240712/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r11-11573-g30ffca55041518.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux.
Please test
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 4:42 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:14 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Pinski writes:
> > > > I need some
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Andrew Pinski writes:
> > I need some help with the vector cost model for aarch64.
> > I am adding V2HI and V4QI mode support by emulating it using the
> > native V4HI/V8QI instructions (similarly to mmx as SSE is done). The
> > proble
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote:
>
> I have another gcc 4.3 question. I'm trying to find where in the code base
> the instrumentation for basic block coverage is done. I've tracked down
> where/how mcount() calls are generated, but I haven't even been able to
> determine
> Am 27.06.2024 um 19:43 schrieb Iain Sandoe :
>
>
>> On 27 Jun 2024, at 14:51, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> If I declare a function __attribute__((noipa, optimize (“-O0”))), I was
>> kinda expecting that it would not be optimized at all ..
>>
>> however it does not seem to prevent functions
> Am 27.06.2024 um 20:55 schrieb Jason Merrill :
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:38 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>>> Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>>>
>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.
> Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html
> proposes to require that repeated unspecified comparisons be
> self-consistent, which does not match current behavior in either GCC
> or Clang. The argument is
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:59 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/25/24 8:44 PM, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
> > I am in the middle of improving the isolation path pass for shifts
> > with out of range operands.
> > There are 3 options we could do really:
> > 1) isolate the path to __builtin_u
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:36 AM Arsen Arsenović via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sam James via Gcc writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally
> > writing an RFC.
> >
> > What?
> > ---
> >
> > I propose that MAINTAINERS be modified to be of the form,
> > adding an
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 12:02 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024, 20:41 Liviu Ionescu, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On 22 Jun 2024, at 22:02, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > >> GCC 12.4 was released two days ago, but I could not yet find the
> > release archive at https://ftp.gnu
Status
==
The gcc-11 branch nears its retirement with the last release from it,
GCC 11.5, on the horizon.
Please look through bugzilla and see which of your regression fixes
for GCC 12 are also applicable for the GCC 11 branch and do the
necessary backporting. Please error on the safe side s
Status
==
GCC 12.4 has been released and the branch is again open for regression
and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority#Change from last report
------
P1 0
P2588- 31
P3 76- 1
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 08:01 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener via Gcc:
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > >
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 09:14, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >
> > The first release candidate for GCC 12.4 is available from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.4.0-RC-20240613/
> >
&g
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect
> for C and its use is c_update_type_canonical then causes
> PR114930 and PR115502. In the later function I think
> it is not r
The first release candidate for GCC 12.4 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.4.0-RC-20240613/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r12-10557-g6693b1f3929771.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux.
Please te
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 11:57 AM Hanke Zhang wrote:
>
> Richard Biener 于2024年5月24日周五 14:39写道：
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 5:53 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I got a question about optimizing function pointers for direct
&g
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 8:57 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to study "Match and Simplify" recently, and I had this sample code:
>
> int main() {
> int n = 1000;
> int *a = malloc (sizeof(int) * n);
> int *b = malloc (sizeof(int) * n);
> int *c = malloc (sizeof(int) *
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 4:08 PM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:22 AM FX Coudert via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I usually just install with install-no-fixedincludes, but really this
> > > should probably be a configure option and default to on.
> >
> > It would be g
> Am 05.06.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Michael Matz :
>
> Hey,
>
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> The ideal here would be to have some way to tell gcc that a given
>> function has the semantics of a different function. For example, a
>> programmer might have several implementations
> Am 04.06.2024 um 16:56 schrieb Michael Matz :
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
>>>>> You have a pointer how to define a target optab? I looked into optabs
>>>>> code but found no appropriate hook. For
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there some sort of guarantee that the unused part of a partial vector has
> all bits set to zero?
>
> The question came up while implementing an insn for mode V2SF on s390
> where only half of the hard reg
> Am 01.06.2024 um 17:41 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.24 um 22:12 schrieb Richard Biener:
>>>> Am 31.05.2024 um 20:56 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 31.05.24 um 19:32 schrieb Richard Bi
> Am 31.05.2024 um 20:56 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.24 um 19:32 schrieb Richard Biener:
>>>> Am 31.05.2024 um 17:25 schrieb Paul Koning via Gcc :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 31, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Georg-Joha
> Am 31.05.2024 um 17:25 schrieb Paul Koning via Gcc :
>
>
>
>> On May 31, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 31.05.24 um 17:00 schrieb Paul Koning:
> On May 31, 2024, at 9:52 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> What's the recommended way to stop built-in
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 4:59 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I've recently been trying to hand-write code to trigger automatic
> vectorization optimizations in GCC on Intel x86 machines (without
> using the interfaces in immintrin.h), but I'm running into a problem
> where I can't seem to
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:14 AM Sad Clouds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:05:50 +0200
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > If you build an executable to pick up libstdc++ via a RUNPATH that apps
> > RUNPATH
> > should apply to libgcc as well. If you use LD_LIBRARY_
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 8:47 AM Sad Clouds via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello, I'm noticing some issues with libstdc++ after building GCC from
> sources and installing into /opt/gcc-14.1.0. Specifically:
>
> $ objdump -x /opt/gcc-14.1.0/lib/libstdc++.so.6 | grep RUNPATH
>
> $ ldd /opt/gcc-14.1.0/lib/libstdc
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 3:08 PM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm trying to studing the automatic vectorization optimization in GCC,
> but I found one case that SLP vectorizer failed to do such things.
>
> Here is the sample code: (also a simplification version of a function
> from the 625/
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 5:53 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I got a question about optimizing function pointers for direct
> function calls in C.
>
> Consider the following scenario: one of the fields of a structure is a
> function pointer, and all its assignments come from the same funct
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 6:21 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/21/24 8:02 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 21, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/21/24 12:05 AM, Richard Biener via G
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2023, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > I haven't worked with these targets in years and can't really do
> > sensible maintenance or reviews of patches for them. I am currently
> > working on optimizations for other ports like RISC-V.
On Fri, 17 May 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener via Gcc writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss how to go forward with getting the vectorizer to
> > all-SLP for this stage1. While there is a personal branch with my
> > ongoing work (
Hi,
I'd like to discuss how to go forward with getting the vectorizer to
all-SLP for this stage1. While there is a personal branch with my
ongoing work (users/rguenth/vect-force-slp) branches haven't proved
themselves working well for collaboration. The branch isn't ready
to be merged in full
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:40 PM Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> This is an RFC more than anything and I will be implementing the ideas
> here. So thinking about how to improve code generation in general and depend
> less on RTL passes (like combine) to do some instruction selection.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 2:06 AM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 21:40:44 +0200
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you don't link cobol1 with the correct make variables
> > as other FEs are linked?
>
> First, thank you for the careful answer. It allowed me to trace
> through the m
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 6:00 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 May 2024, at 16:05, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2023, at 00:32, Ben Boeckel via Gcc wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 18:57:37 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 2:06 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs via Gcc wrote:
> > On 08.05.24 11:50, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > "With the |-fpermissive| option, programs can use C99 inlining semantics
> >
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 11:39 AM Matthias Urlichs via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html states:
>
> "With the |-fpermissive| option, programs can use C99 inlining semantics
> and features that were removed from C99"
>
> Umm, what? this sentence doesn't make sense.
The GCC developers are proud to announce a new major GCC release, 14.1.
The C frontend when targeting standards newer than C89 now considers
many non-standard constructs as errors that were previously only
warnings. See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html#warnings-as-errors
for more detail
Status
==
The GCC 14.1 release tarballs have been created, the releases/gcc-14
branch is open again for regression and documentation bugfixing.
GCC 14.2 can be expected in about two months unless something serious
changes the plans.
Quality Data
Priority # Change fro
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 11:41 PM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/1/24 2:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 12:15, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/22/24 9:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
> >>> Jason> unsuccessfully.
> >
> Am 30.04.2024 um 21:11 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
>> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
>> tracked this do
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:45 AM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working on adding path coverage support to gcc/gcov and need to
> develop a good testing strategy.
>
> So far I can reasonably well report on the uncovered path as such:
>
> paths covered 6 of 17
> path not covered: 2 8 3 4
>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:45 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently
> wi
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:06 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> I have two simple questions, I hope!
>
> 1. Is there a set of flags that, when compiling gcc, is meant to
> produce no warnings? I get a surfeit of warnings with my particular
> favorite options.
-w is supposed to do that
> 2. Are th
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:02 PM Andrew Pinski (QUIC)
wrote:
>
> While looking into PR 114666, I noticed that we don't verify COND_EXPR's
> first operand. In most of my recent patches to match.pd, I was assuming that
> it would be a boolean (or a type which would contain
> [0,1]) but this PR show
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 9:47 AM Jora Gevorgyan via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> We're trying to improve the optimization process in GCC by adding manual
> optimization attributes to some needed functions. I couldn't yet find the
> code routine where the attributes can be added to a special function
> dec
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:42 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I want to create a new type similar to this one `(const __m256i_u *
> {ref-all})` indeed. And I try to create it via these calls:
>
> tree type = build_vector_type_for_mode (intDI_type_node, V4DIm
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:47 AM Pierrick Philippe
wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2024 14:53, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:44 PM Pierrick Philippe
> wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2024 14:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:59 PM Pierrick Philippe
>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:18 PM Andrew Sutton via Gcc wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I think the key difference here is that Autotools allows arbitrarily
> > generated code to be executed at any time. More modern build systems
> > require the use of specific commands/files to run arbitrary code, e.g.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:44 PM Pierrick Philippe
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2024 14:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:59 PM Pierrick Philippe
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I do have a question regarding ssa_name and result_decl.
>
> For example on the f
1 - 100 of 2169 matches
Mail list logo
