https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
> symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand
> what th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Just note pshufb needs SSE3, and it seems reasonable to define a SSE3
> broadcast pattern which generates pxor + pshufb.
w/ -msse4 gcc generates ideal instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
> symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand
> what the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #1 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Strange, I didn't receive a mail/notification for this PR all, otherwise I
would have looked into it earlier. This has been happening a few times lately,
grml. Looking into it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
On a slightly different subject, I wish VCOND would print out the tree code
symbolically rather than just a number. It would be easier to understand what
the condition exec is really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> (set (reg:V16QI 93)
> (unspec:V16QI [
> (subreg:V16QI (reg/v:V2DI 92 [ input ]) 0)
> (subreg:V16QI (reg/v:V2DI 91 [ value ]) 0)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
--- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
I had a try for GCC11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574421.html.
The patches could mitigate the BB-count mismatch issue for loops. In theory,
this patch would make sense. But it also rai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Just note pshufb needs SSE3, and it seems reasonable to define a SSE3 broadcast
pattern which generates pxor + pshufb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e66ba0f55c000152df63fc67c11a64f79122ef86
commit r12-7079-ge66ba0f55c000152df63fc67c11a64f79122ef86
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Sun Feb 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8103623923ac4ea19b97a369979d4bd5731aab57
commit r12-7078-g8103623923ac4ea19b97a369979d4bd5731aab57
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Sun Feb 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
>[local count: 1073741824]:
> _2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v16qi>(x_3(D));
> _6 = _2 == { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> _7 = VIEW_CONVER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104413
Bug ID: 104413
Summary: _mm_set1_epi8 isn't optimized for SSE2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (unspec:SI [
(eq:V16QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V2DI 94) 0)
(const_vector:V16QI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Similar for
#include
bool is_zero256(__m256i x)
{
return _mm256_movemask_epi8(_mm256_cmpeq_epi8(x, _mm256_setzero_si256()))
== 0x;
}
Hi
When I tried old gfortran7, the below works:
gfortran-7 dgesvd-ex.f -o DGESVD.out -L/usr/local/opt/lapack/lib
-llapack -lblas
But gfortran 11 failed:
gfortran dgesvd-ex.f -o DGESVD.out -L/usr/local/opt/lapack/lib
-llapack -lblas
ld: library not fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Wojciech Mula from comment #6)
> Hongtao, thank you for your patch and for pinging back! I checked the code
> from this issue against version 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-14), but still, there
> are KMOVQ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
--- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng ---
I plan back port this fix to GCC 11 branch too, and will close this bug after
back port.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104271
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
I think this patch has already been reverted by
r12-3011-g1db70e61a92978377a648bbd90e383859fc0126b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is slightly more reduced:
constexpr bool use_func_v{};
struct func_obj
{
template requires use_func_v
void operator()(T);
};
template
concept tt = requires {t{}(args{}...);};
constexpr bool bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0, 11.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104404
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this was already fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding -fno-vect-cost-model allows it to be optimized. So a cost model issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104412
Bug ID: 104412
Summary: [Aarch64] Failure to optimize vector initialization
from int64s
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|GC |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104411
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104411
Bug ID: 104411
Summary: Cannot capture by reference using braced initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97040
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104410
Bug ID: 104410
Summary: Internal error using default-initialized constexpr
bool in requires clause
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
linux-gnu --host=x86_64-build_pc-linux-gnu
--target=aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220206/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--exec_prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20220206/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--with-sysroot=/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96242
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=96242
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8eb329e963593342855b6072e5692659107337b7
commit r12-7076-g8eb329e963593342855b6072e5692659107337b7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104118
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
At present, I cannot reproduce this with the .i and the command line given -
please could you attach the .o and .s files as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> > FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
>
> Does it affect only ppc64? I am asking since if it affects ppc32, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #18 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
Does it affect only ppc64? I am asking since if it affects ppc32, then I rather
rebuild gcc10ppc and gcc11ppc installed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
FTR: this is the patch I came up with:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 843ce97b993..3f803bd791f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #2 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52360&action=edit
Fix broken split-stack support for GNU/Hurd
Hello,
The attached patch defines OPTION_GLIBC_P and OPTION_GLIB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
--- Comment #3 from eric.pouech at orange dot fr ---
bug opened on binutils side
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > The following patch solves the problem:
>
>
> Does this also address Bug 104118?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
>
> The first one is in rs6000.cc::legitimate_lo_sum_address_p which permits
> wrong pic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104033
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386
--- Comment #2 from Artur Bać ---
I think it is connected with this case
https://godbolt.org/z/cvfs1KqGW
https://godbolt.org/z/vdzTzo7be
//sizeof(foo) ==12
struct base
{
uint32_t x{};
std::byte v{};
base() noexcept = default;
};
struct foo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
commit r12-7075-gf9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104033
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
commit r12-7075-gf9e900ce9b17dc7d3a3809d0b0648ebe529a87c5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
In particular, the rewrite should probably be gated on the expression being
single use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> But seems to me a simple enough thing that we should be able to handle.
It looks simple but register allocation especially with demands on some things
in spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The big question becomes now is really an issue in real world code or just a
> toy benchmark which is testing argument/return passing optimizations?
Can't say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
Blocks|101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104406
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Yeah it looks like there's an overlap with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485 indeed, but that ticket
seems to be trying to address multiple things at once including an x86 costing
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408
Bug ID: 104408
Summary: SLP discovery fails due to -Ofast rewriting
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Created attachment 52359 [details]
> Cuda reproducer
Filed at https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia_bug/3527713 as "cvt.u32.u16
sign-extends instead of zero-extends"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
--- Comment #2 from eric.pouech at orange dot fr ---
output of compiling with -save-temp
generating the good.s, good-eng.s and fail.s (with same naming conventions as
in #1)
[eric]$ diff good.s good-eng.s
7812c7812
< .ascii "Unknown PCI ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97005
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52359&action=edit
Cuda reproducer
74 matches
Mail list logo
