https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note f4 right now produces the best code even though it is not add/setN.
leal(%rdi,%rsi), %eax
shrl$31, %eax
is better overall because it does not touch the flags register and all
esp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
> Can x86 do this? We'd want to apply this to a scalar, so move ivtmp
> to xmm, apply pack_usat or as you say below, the non-existing us_trunc
> and then broadcast.
I see, we don't have scalar version. Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110227
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Semi-Reduced testcase:
> ```
> #include
>
> void f()
> {
> __m256i mask = _mm256_set_epi32(0, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1);
> register __m256i reg asm("xmm16") =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103760
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to danakj from comment #7)
> MSVC and Clang both accept this code, which GCC rejects. Is it the same
> issue and GCC is compliant here?
I think so because of this part:
"so substitution failure fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Here's a similar, simpler testcase:
int f1 (void);
void f2 (int);
long f3 (long);
void tst (void)
{
int badDataSize[3] = { 1, 1, 1 };
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
int emax;
if (i =
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 reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103760
danakj at orodu dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danakj at orodu dot net
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110216
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110189
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110189
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8089f26b94f47d9923d3bc0c05aae09363983b2e
commit r14-1739-g8089f26b94f47d9923d3bc0c05aae09363983b2e
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110189
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Related: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2653.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60939
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
One can pass command line arguments to the AIX linker through a file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110189
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||90475
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110231
Bug ID: 110231
Summary: unhelpful diagnostic when constructing through
initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #32 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059435.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #31 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #30)
> Now that I think again, I'm not even sure we would regress.
> My concern was that the data would remain NULL after the realloc(NULL, 0),
> and the arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110230
Bug ID: 110230
Summary: new test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr109932-1.c in
r14-1705-g2764335bd336f2 fails for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #29)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > > > (In reply to Mikael Mori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #29 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > > (In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60939
--- Comment #10 from Adam Swartz ---
I have a program with 130+ .o files that would need the keepfile option. Is
there a way to pass all of the object files to the linker with a single
keepfile option? I cannot find any doc on the keepfile link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> > > >
> > > > This regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #27 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> > >
> > > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55297|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html
listed as ? there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||cwg2386
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the `&` case with r14-1597-g64d90d06d2db43538c8a45 should be ok always I
think as you are anding with a known non-uninitialized variable (that is always
0 or 1) that will produce a value which is known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110218
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So what I think was happening was that we would sink past a bunch of
conditionals that were never going to be true thinking that we were moving to a
deeper control nest. So the idea was to use the frequenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110202
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101188
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae193f9008e02683e27f3c87f3b06f38e103b1d0
commit r14-1738-gae193f9008e02683e27f3c87f3b06f38e103b1d0
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Jun 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110105
--- Comment #4 from Pavel M ---
To: rsand...@gcc.gnu.org
Thanks! I confused __fp16 with _Float16.
However, if __fp16 is only a “storage type”, then why this code:
__fp16 mul(__fp16 x, __fp16 y)
{
return x * y;
}
compiled with -O3 -mfpu=fp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
--- Comment #4 from Larry Fiedler ---
Yes, I should have experimented with changing the stack size.
The structure is now done as an initializer list of an array with no problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way it is just a stack overflow while GCC is doing a mark and sweep GC .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
--- Comment #2 from Larry Fiedler ---
Created attachment 55313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55313&action=edit
script to make the c++ file that segfaults
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding :
default:__builtin_unreachable();
Makes the testcase in this report work.
Maybe there should be an assert in LLVM's code too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>It could easily be generated by a script, but I don't know the rules on that
>one.
Attaching the script is ok for this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the original code definitely has an uninitialized variable in it.
The enum is defined as:
enum class SymbolLookupFlags { RequiredSymbol, WeaklyReferencedSymbol };
Which always has an underlying type s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
Bug ID: 110229
Summary: Segment fault on git clone
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Phiopt does this:
```
v_13 == 1 ? 1 : LookupFlags_6
Matching expression match.pd:1990, gimple-match-5.cc:23
Matching expression match.pd:1990, gimple-match-5.cc:23
Matching expression match.pd:2479,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55311
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55311&action=edit
reduced testcase without vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
Bug ID: 110228
Summary: [14 Regression] llvm-16 miscompilation on small case
switch, minimized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpegqs at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110202
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Cannizzo ---
> Well, there is nothing magic on exactly 0x55 immediate, there are 256
> possible immediates, most of them use all of A, B, C, some of them use just
> A, B, others just B, C, others just A, C, others just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |preprocessor
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
#2 0x00dfafd8 in patch_jump_insn (insn=0x77775360,
old_label=0x7760c840, new_bb=0x7776a000) at ../../gcc/cfgrtl.cc:1295
1295 gcc_assert (JUMP_LABEL (insn) == old_label);
(gd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #35 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Boris Kolpackov from comment #34)
> Would like to echo other's comments: getting a large number false positives
> in our codebase (build2). Thankfully this warning seems to only be enabled
> wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Rozsnyo ---
The ICE is triggered in gcc 13 and 14 versions only.
Added gcc 11 and 12 to my gentoo crossdev - it compiles without ICE assertion
on those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55310
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55310&action=edit
Reduced as I can get it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Summary|ICE in patch_ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77650
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the patch for this documentation change in GCC has been posted and approved
at:https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/620148.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110225
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ddc8c7871fdc7748315d9c09fcf29c2607a1077
commit r14-1735-g0ddc8c7871fdc7748315d9c09fcf29c2607a1077
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110227
--- Comment #1 from Joe Weening ---
Sorry, forgot to include the command line:
$ gcc -march=cooperlake -O3 -c bug.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110227
Bug ID: 110227
Summary: gcc generates invalid AVX-512 code
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf470895905e9152424076d1630a9d2c60de023b
commit r14-1718-gbf470895905e9152424076d1630a9d2c60de023b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110226
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110226
Bug ID: 110226
Summary: GCC ignores include of non-existent header
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110225
Bug ID: 110225
Summary: [14 regression] many ICEs after
r14-1624-g28db36e2cfca1b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
--- Comment #10 from Thorsten Otto ---
Yes, thank you, that seems to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110221
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So sth along the PR108979 patch doesn't help:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc
index 61e508fcb6c..be963aea16f 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110014
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for fixing this Tim.
Keeping open to track backporting this to the gcc 13 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109577
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for fixing this Tim.
Keeping open to track backporting this to the gcc 13 branch.
TED AS EXPECTED
end program
gfortran-20230612.f90:36:4:
36 | var = 1.0
|1
Error: ‘var’ at (1) associated to expression cannot be used in a variable
definition context (assignment)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110223
Bug ID: 110223
Summary: Missed optimization vectorizing booleans comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110222
Bug ID: 110222
Summary: Inefficient fully masked loop vectorization with
AVX512
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110221
Bug ID: 110221
Summary: With AVX512 fully masking gfortran.dg/pr68146.f ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
--- Comment #9 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 55309
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55309&action=edit
Proposed fix v2
Here is a proposed fix, please can you test on your code? It appears to work
with my short ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110220
Bug ID: 110220
Summary: ICE in patch_jump_insn, at cfgrtl.cc:1295 - avr/xmega
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110077
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109952
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8d41e031b9f52601249ec7e4c4215b851cc8ffe
commit r14-1710-ge8d41e031b9f52601249ec7e4c4215b851cc8ffe
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> >
> > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110219
Bug ID: 110219
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have real_cst in to_wide, at tree.h:6314 with _Complex
float to int
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110200
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bf1c33a5e619564e8602601cc1beebd99e1fb9e
commit r11-10856-g5bf1c33a5e619564e8602601cc1beebd99e1fb9e
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110142
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ad0ef34ccbe656a7a9e5962fe1173226104174a
commit r14-1708-g3ad0ef34ccbe656a7a9e5962fe1173226104174a
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110200
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5f72834a4817b180625a540b99f5c1934c2e0b8
commit r12-9694-gd5f72834a4817b180625a540b99f5c1934c2e0b8
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110218
Bug ID: 110218
Summary: sink pass heuristic not working in practice
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110217
Bug ID: 110217
Summary: [avr] SREG: use BSET and BCLR instead of
load/modify/write
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> cprop1 pass does not consider paradoxical subreg and for (insn 22) claims
> that it equals 8 elements of QImode:
8 elements of HImode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> However, VPMULLW needs all 8 QImode elements, but %xmm4 only has 4 loaded;
To be consistent, VPSRLVW and VPMULLW use HImode elements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #5 from Uroš
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
cprop1 pass does not consider paradoxical subreg and for (insn 22) claims that
it equals 8 elements of QImode:
(insn 21 19 22 4 (set (reg:V4QI 98)
(mem/u/c:V4QI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC1") [flags 0x2])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110216
Bug ID: 110216
Summary: Outdated implementation of tuple_size requirements for
structured binding
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
> ix86_expand_sse_fp_minmax failed since rtx_equal_p (cmp_op0, if_true) is
> false,
>
> 249(reg:DF 86 [ _1 ]) (if_true)
> 250(reg:DF 83 [ _2 ]) (if_false)
> 251(re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109456
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|`-ffixed` is ignored for|`-ffixed-reg` cannot
|`a`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110200
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73ae34bb693038829c05bed30d7ac623e67bde2e
commit r13-7439-g73ae34bb693038829c05bed30d7ac623e67bde2e
Author: Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
