https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect the thing you are requesting is having the template keyword as being
optional but I am not sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You provide a full example of what you want?
Because right now your example your provided does not even compile with msvc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> There is a defect report in this area of gcc.
Sorry c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a defect report in this area of gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
--- Comment #1 from steve02081504 ---
(Corrected code)
```c++
template
struct type_info_t{
//...
template
static constexpr bool can_convert_to=XXX;
//...
};
template
constexpr type_info_ttype_info{};
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109169
Bug ID: 109169
Summary: Feature request: Allow omitted template prompts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109168
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to waffl3x from comment #0)
> BTW, should I be selecting the oldest version that a bug occurs or the
> newest version? I observed the behavior all the way back to 10.1, which
> appears to be when
like I'm not incorrect.
The code also fails on my system with version: g++ (GCC) 13.0.1 20230219
(experimental)
Here is the gcc version on compiler explorer at the time of writing: g++
(Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-0c061da91a3657afdb3fac68e4595af685909a1a-binutils-2.38)
13.0.1 20230316 (experime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> Note that section 3.1 ("File Format" > "General") specifies:
> "A SARIF log file SHALL be encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629]."
> https://docs.oasis-open.org/sari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109167
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109167
Bug ID: 109167
Summary: rs6000: _mm_slli_si128 and _mm_bslli_si128 are
inconsistent in wrapper header
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Armv4t does not have smp so the question is how do you think the below is not
atomic? Yes interrupts but that requires more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/4f596367.2050...@redhat.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
Bug ID: 109166
Summary: Built-in __atomic_test_and_set does not seem to be
atomic on ARMv4T
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109165
Bug ID: 109165
Summary: std::hash>::operator() should be
const
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109164
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% if this is a front-end issue or a gimple level optimization
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|thread_local initialization |thread_local initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109164
Bug ID: 109164
Summary: aarch64 thread_local initialization error with
-ftree-pre and -foptimize-sibling-calls
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109163
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105809
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78b3bf0e65072f5fa42a8da43698711220d4f8ef
commit r13-6723-g78b3bf0e65072f5fa42a8da43698711220d4f8ef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b323f52ccf966800297b0520b9e1d4b3951db525
commit r13-6722-gb323f52ccf966800297b0520b9e1d4b3951db525
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101869
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cc8814098bb46f9fca58a0b831fbf9a8574bdc9
commit r13-6721-g1cc8814098bb46f9fca58a0b831fbf9a8574bdc9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109163
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
This would also help with one of the requests from a SARIF expert's review of
GCC's output:
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/issues/531#issuecomment-1181191100
which is that the "version" property
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
[...snip...]
> There some variation due to json::object using a hash_map for the key/value
> pairs, which means (annoyingly) it outputs things in arbitrary order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109163
Bug ID: 109163
Summary: SARIF (and other JSON) output files are
non-deterministic
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Note that section 3.1 ("File Format" > "General") specifies:
"A SARIF log file SHALL be encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629]."
https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.1.0/sarif-v2.1.0.html
Though I suppose it wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-01-30 00:00:00 |2023-03-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105089
Indu Bhagat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109162
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109162
Bug ID: 109162
Summary: C++23 improvements to std::format
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81323
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Or the ranger could do it itself, similarly to how it handles .ASSUME, but
> without actually querying anything but the global range of the return value
> if any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109161
Bug ID: 109161
Summary: Bad CTF generated for stub in function scope
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109125
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f231bca93ca92f6fd55de6fbe4bf8935f9ec558a
commit r13-6719-gf231bca93ca92f6fd55de6fbe4bf8935f9ec558a
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107630
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77924dff144cf934e7a73417d237a99f0d9d66ed
commit r13-6718-g77924dff144cf934e7a73417d237a99f0d9d66ed
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Thu
096
```
Output of godbolt's gcc(trunk):
```
# g++ --version
g++
(Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-0c061da91a3657afdb3fac68e4595af685909a1a-binutils-2.38)
13.0.1 20230316 (experimental)
# g++ -std=c++20
: In substitution of 'template,
Traits>] rhsBar> void Foo::doNothing(const Foo&)
[w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38220
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeff Hammond from comment #8)
> For what it's worth, ISO/IEC DIS 1539-1:2022 (E) now contains the following:
>
> All standard procedures in the intrinsic module ISO_C_BINDING, other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Bug ID: 109159
Summary: explicit constructor is used in copy-initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106188
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106713
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105809
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105554
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54686&action=edit
gcc13-pr105554.patch
This untested patch seems to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109030
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31cdfdef04701e10cffcec4578b2337684f0e4bc
commit r13-6716-g31cdfdef04701e10cffcec4578b2337684f0e4bc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105554
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I have tried
--- gcc/cgraphclones.cc.jj 2023-02-24 11:05:19.704595633 +0100
+++ gcc/cgraphclones.cc 2023-03-16 19:12:30.452503051 +0100
@@ -1094,6 +1094,15 @@ cgraph_node::create_version_clone_with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109140
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at davemloft dot net
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c630157fd01140dbce120c1409c413a97dc17104
commit r13-6715-gc630157fd01140dbce120c1409c413a97dc17104
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alas, yes. This system is quite old and not being updated any more. It
hopefully will be retired soon.
This probably isn't a big deal and as far as I am concerned can be ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105554
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
A lot of ipa passes use push_cfun:
grep push_cfun ipa*.cc
ipa-fnsummary.cc: push_cfun (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (node->decl));
ipa-fnsummary.cc: push_cfun (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (node->decl));
ipa-modref.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108636
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108636
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d640e435f156d8f825bf95c2164053b4a3a7b682
commit r10-11253-gd640e435f156d8f825bf95c2164053b4a3a7b682
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I think we can either use:
2023-03-16 Jakub Jelinek
PR testsuite/109145
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-39.c (CMPLXF): Define if not defined.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109157
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The excess error is:
/home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-39.c: In
function 'foo':
/home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-39.c:11:13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 54684
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54684&action=edit
Preprocessed file
Attached file from this command
/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109140
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson ---
A bisect between 4.6.4 (good) and 4.7.4 (bad) found:
1f9ed162eb30f1b40b65d164b3a40ac78e1f006e is the first bad commit
commit 1f9ed162eb30f1b40b65d164b3a40ac78e1f006e
Author: David S. Miller
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101869
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Assignee|jason at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109158
Bug ID: 109158
Summary: arm: errors when mixing
__attribute__((pcs("aapcs-vfp"))) with +nofp
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] aarch64 |[13 regression] jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Confirmed, It looks like the extra range information from
g:4fbe3e6aa74dae5c75a73c46ae6683fdecd1a75d is leading jump threading down the
wrong path.
Reduced testcase:
---
int etot_0, fasten_main_natpro_ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108636
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05fa584bbb5534ec7a763a2d0e6d89cf251534f5
commit r11-10581-g05fa584bbb5534ec7a763a2d0e6d89cf251534f5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104883
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c86ac1a463f97554b1df9ef8a3e18573ef115e35
commit r11-10578-gc86ac1a463f97554b1df9ef8a3e18573ef115e35
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
--- Comment #16 from Maciej S. Szmigiero ---
> If you rely on the standard guarantee that extern "C" and extern "C++" make
> function types different, you probably get compilation errors.
It's the other way around - functions in standard-compli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109157
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #25 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe it would help to say that *any* class that has a reference member is a
reference-wrapper and don't warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5e2c3dd6afcf9b152df72b30e205b0180c0afd5
commit r13-6713-gc5e2c3dd6afcf9b152df72b30e205b0180c0afd5
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109125
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Gaius Mulley ---
> Created attachment 54675
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54675&action=edit
> Proposed fix v3
>
> Many thanks for testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109145
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am updating some tools on the system and will try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108541
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105554
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108311
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108312
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109157
Bug ID: 109157
Summary: -fbound-check: false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109156
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=109156
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> > 2. It looks like all targets that implement SAD do so with an instruction
> > that does ABD and then perform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109094
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-16
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109156
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> 2. It looks like all targets that implement SAD do so with an instruction
> that does ABD and then perform a reduction. So it looks like no target has
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks for the report, taking a look!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109156
Bug ID: 109156
Summary: Support Absolute Difference detection in GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109094
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Fixed?
Sadly no, the comment above is just to mention that at least the crash is now
captured in the .sarif dump.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109004
--- Comment #11 from bugreporter66 at gmail dot com ---
Created a QEMU bug here:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/1547
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106912
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/614071.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/614070.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109004
--- Comment #10 from bugreporter66 at gmail dot com ---
I checked the simple version of the test with QEMU 6.2.0 and 7.0.0:
ubuntu-mate@ubuntu-mate:~/Downloads/test_p64$
ubuntu-mate@ubuntu-mate:~/Downloads/test_p64$ powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++ -O
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
