https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95198
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Witold Baryluk from comment #0)
> ```
> module t1;
>
> extern(C)
> private final int f() {
> return 5;
> }
> pragma(msg, f.mangleof);
>
> ```
>
> `gdc -c t1.d -o t1.o` results in object with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This is new behavior for warnings in GCC 10 and now how all other optimization
options behave - the option state is fixed per function at compile-time and
carried over to link-time.
Indeed warning options a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95187
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Nemo from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
>
> I would be happy if GCC could just emit optimal code (single vcmpeqd
> instruction) for this useful constant:
>
> _mm25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95018
--- Comment #34 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
As previous patch 6d099a76a0f6a040a3e678f2bce7fc69cc3257d8(rs6000: Enable
limited unrolling at -O2) only affects simple loops on rs6000.
We may also set limits for GIMPLE cunroll, like for RTL unroller throug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95200
Bug ID: 95200
Summary: user-defined hash function is not copied correctly if
unordered_map is declared using an incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
>--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>Why cast to unsigned char? The prototypes for tolower(), toupper(),
>isdigit(), etc show that the type of the argument is int.
See https://stackoverflow.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66439
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:864fed4a491606a7b17325d847e1d723d2a44104
commit r11-476-g864fed4a491606a7b17325d847e1d723d2a44104
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:573e5f0500968dcf4025b8fc0ae5fb367f9c70d9
commit r11-477-g573e5f0500968dcf4025b8fc0ae5fb367f9c70d9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95174
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Witold Baryluk from comment #2)
> Doh. Of course. My bad. Sorry.
>
>
> static arrays are value type, dynamic arrays are reference type.
>
Dynamic arrays are still value types, the value passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
Bug ID: 95199
Summary: Remove extra variable created for memory reference in
loop vectorization.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95198
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk ---
BTW.
Using:
```
extern(C) private final static int f() { ... }
```
doesn't change anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95198
Bug ID: 95198
Summary: [D] extern(C) private final functions should use
'local' linker attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95174
--- Comment #2 from Witold Baryluk ---
Doh. Of course. My bad. Sorry.
static arrays are value type, dynamic arrays are reference type.
Changing signature to:
```
void f(immutable(float[64]) x, float[] o);
```
solves the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
Bug ID: 95197
Summary: libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c++/for-27.C fails with
-std=c++17
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30368
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95175
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-11 23:28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95196
Bug ID: 95196
Summary: Assumed-rank incorrect array bounds inside select rank
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d4e1e144c25e526e4f668be5a0bc10d0c1c738c
commit r11-474-g2d4e1e144c25e526e4f668be5a0bc10d0c1c738c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE with |[10 Regression] ICE with if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf732686c0b9c42a2fe119db774c5a65e5a97174
commit r11-473-gbf732686c0b9c42a2fe119db774c5a65e5a97174
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95195
Bug ID: 95195
Summary: gfortran poorly handles a program error of writing a
namelist to an unformatted file.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95194
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR48200 touches on why asm aliases are problematic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95194
Bug ID: 95194
Summary: bootstrap-lto fails on musl (bundled libintl uses asm
aliases)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8edf0adb6616bd717312d9b305c7d7c9a6b7a171
commit r11-472-g8edf0adb6616bd717312d9b305c7d7c9a6b7a171
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90915
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90915
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d2246a32c638e9caea109e5dd9f182f5cd43b2a
commit r11-471-g5d2246a32c638e9caea109e5dd9f182f5cd43b2a
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 94940, which changed state.
Bug 94940 Summary: [10 Regression] spurious -Warray-bounds for a zero length
array member of union since r10-4300-g49fb45c81f4ac068
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff61c5bd1490a006c00bed9259dc672351eb217a
commit r10-8154-gff61c5bd1490a006c00bed9259dc672351eb217a
Author: Martin Sebor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
--- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
I tried it on another system where gfortran 6.5 and 7.4.0 that don't leak, but
8.4.0 does, so in that sense at least I think it is a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a41fcde6c67faafab8c8ee2a31140999383dcef
commit r11-470-g7a41fcde6c67faafab8c8ee2a31140999383dcef
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3956244c58acceebf1ef2cf9a63e99f0f82abcb7
commit r11-469-g3956244c58acceebf1ef2cf9a63e99f0f82abcb7
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82261
Michael Clark changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michaeljclark at mac dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87699
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87699
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae8ed736addb2b005d54c0b3191ac599a04ec170
commit r11-467-gae8ed736addb2b005d54c0b3191ac599a04ec170
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
Bug ID: 95193
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:14624
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95063
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
Is there more work pending, or can this PR be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
Bug ID: 95192
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree_list,
have error_mark in handle_assume_aligned_attribute, at
c-family/c-attribs.c:2996
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.1, 11.0, 7.4.1, 8.2.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 95053, which changed state.
Bug 95053 Summary: [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95191
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5abd1cb9160619721336ed800779a01548231f1
commit r11-461-ge5abd1cb9160619721336ed800779a01548231f1
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94952
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 94952, which changed state.
Bug 94952 Summary: Possible false positive of uninitialized variable usage
during release build in gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94952
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94952
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c832ffedf06ff614fc36c44ab6c892d84075e08
commit r11-460-g2c832ffedf06ff614fc36c44ab6c892d84075e08
Author: Stefan Schul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95143
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be464161b4ae128681958d94aa460531cf30e0a4
commit r11-459-gbe464161b4ae128681958d94aa460531cf30e0a4
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94833
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24f68831d25bad739a6fe167a58b5b4c0c3cbf9a
commit r11-458-g24f68831d25bad739a6fe167a58b5b4c0c3cbf9a
Author: Carl Love
Date: Wed Apr 29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-18
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95191
Bug ID: 95191
Summary: Hang in WAIT with a bad ID= value if threading
specified
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95169
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f17461bdfeed758f2be71529fc3af55a76ea3e1
commit r11-457-g8f17461bdfeed758f2be71529fc3af55a76ea3e1
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
--- Comment #4 from Antony Lewis ---
Not sure why no one has at least picked up on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
since it is a reproducible regression with a simple test case, an a bug that
effectively kills some previousl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
--- Comment #5 from Nemo ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
I would be happy if GCC could just emit optimal code (single vcmpeqd
instruction) for this useful constant:
_mm256_set_m128i(_mm_setzero_si128(), _mm_set1_epi8(-1))
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> This is a bug, but you're running a --traditional C preprocessor test
> through the c++ compiler, right?
Through the C compiler, but otherwise yes. I've posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
This is a bug, but you're running a --traditional C preprocessor test through
the c++ compiler, right? (A regular test run doesn't fail this test for me at
least)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95120
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95174
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94925
--- Comment #4 from Fred Krogh ---
Before submitting this I tried to make a small test case to show the problem.
It did not show the problem. I was hoping that the fact that the message just
started and there were no options that would turn it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
Bug ID: 95190
Summary: Documentation for -Wstringop-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Bug ID: 95189
Summary: memcmp being wrongly stripped (regression)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
Bug ID: 95188
Summary: analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong
statement for signal registration event
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95141
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So there's already (OVF) at
>
> ((long unsigned int) IA1 & 158(OVF)) & 1
>
> but we only check
>
> 375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
> 376
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95184
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
Done in r9-8603.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92216
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e84ee0fab9cedfa57fe86ea3c00608f6a873ab9
commit r9-8603-g3e84ee0fab9cedfa57fe86ea3c00608f6a873ab9
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95187
Bug ID: 95187
Summary: Failure to optimize bool check into consecutive
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, thanks for all these bugreports!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70320
jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58507
jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95186
Bug ID: 95186
Summary: Optimize allocate(..., source=0) or allocate(...,
source=[0.0, 0.0, ...]) to use calloc instead of
malloc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78554
jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78838
jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Bug ID: 95185
Summary: Failure to optimize specific kind of sign comparison
check
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 8192
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 16384
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 4096
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95171
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe168751c5c1c517c7c89c9a1e4e561d66b24663
commit r11-451-gfe168751c5c1c517c7c89c9a1e4e561d66b24663
Author: Richard Biener
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> But such an instruction isn't always redundant, it really depends on what
> the previous setter of the register did, whether the upper 128 bit of the
> 256-bit regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
You're right, from intel SDM:
VEX.128 encoded version: Bits (MAXVL-1:128) of the destination register are
zeroed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
Bug 57359 depends on bug 95172, which changed state.
Bug 95172 Summary: [11 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu since
r11-272-gb6ff3ddecfa93d53
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95172
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95172
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52a0f83980082c9995f2d8ec9b88548520fb8a5f
commit r11-450-g52a0f83980082c9995f2d8ec9b88548520fb8a5f
Author: Richard Biener
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95075
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
"""
I think I wrote it that way to emphasize what the result should be, and relied
on the optimizer removing the self-assignment. So, the code is correct.
"""
So I'll remove the self-assignment with a comment
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
