https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110445
Bug ID: 110445
Summary: [14 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-46.c with AVX2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110440
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I've hit it with another package (basis_universal) but the ICE looks identical
and it's C++ so I won't worry about reducing it unless someone asks me to.
```
during GIMPLE pass: vect
/var/tmp/portage/games-util
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110202
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
>
> For this one, we can load *a into %zmm0 to avoid false_dependence.
>
> vmovdqau ZMMWORD PTR [rdi], zmm0
> vpternlogq zmm0, zmm0, zmm0, 85
Yes, since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abdf0b6cdff5783b97f35ad61ae31433f0569dfd
commit r14-2149-gabdf0b6cdff5783b97f35ad61ae31433f0569dfd
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 110344, which changed state.
Bug 110344 Summary: [C++26] P2738R1 - constexpr cast from void*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110344
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110344
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110344
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1c6e9631ca33990a2b7411060ca4d18db081a7d
commit r14-2146-ga1c6e9631ca33990a2b7411060ca4d18db081a7d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110144
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-28
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110202
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> Note that vpxor serves as a dependency-breaking instruction (see PR 110438).
> So in negate1 we do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and in negate2 we
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110438
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 55409
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55409&action=edit
A patch
I am stilling trying to find a small testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this might be already fixed by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/622984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=d915762ea9043da858d388b60b2d8093ff77eeab
Once I reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110443
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #2)
> I wonder if it's a r14-2117-gdd86a5a69cbda4 "tree-optimization/96208 - SLP
> of non-grouped loads".
Reverting r14-2117-gdd86a5a69cbda4 fixes a52dec-0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110443
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
The bug seems to appear sometime between g:f10a4ce044a62c92
and g:319e6fe96027f537, which is 173 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
r14-2041
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110444
Bug ID: 110444
Summary: ice in real_can_shorten_arithmetic, at real.cc:1398
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55407&action=edit
Third patch set
Here's a lightly tested 3rd patch that tries to handle the chaos I created...
Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> There is the "obvious" problem that gfc_build_wide_string_const creates a
> bare array, whereas gfc_string_to_single_character expects a pointer
> wrapping aroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #15)
> I have asked for an account on the compile farm (see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm) to have access to a powerpc machine.
It was pretty fast to get the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
I haven't reproduced this yet, but I notice that I forgot to give class
spatial_item a virtual dtor, which looking at the backtrace may be the root
cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #10 from Jan Žižka ---
Ah I didn't really complain, this is fine by me and I'm happy we can catch
these. The code
and build configuration, which hit this, was not touched for 20 years :-) so
any help is welcome for us at least.
Fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|riscv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The trap was added for PR 104642 because people keep ignoring the -Wreturn-type
warning and then complaining that the code misbehaves.
Of course now people complain that they prefer the unpredictable unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110443
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is related to PR 110440 but the reduced testcases look almost the same but
the ICE is different in both cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110443
Bug ID: 110443
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE on a52dec-0.7.4:
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110440
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55406&action=edit
reduced.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110442
Bug ID: 110442
Summary: IFUNC resolvers which use __builtin_cpu_supports crash
with -fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110344
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=110440
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110441
Bug ID: 110441
Summary: c++17 deferred materialization of temporaries fails
when calling class static with member syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110440
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
gcc -O3 -c ... is enough to repro.
9ec4f25f845d8153053147c5c49) 14.0.0
20230627 (experimental) 3c52dff792878306515056ecd94c8aa909f388fb
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
attachment 54666 from PR109093 seems able to fix this. Could we make it into
trunk and the release branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110439
David Faust changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110439
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The may_alias does not apply directly to variables nor their types
ied_type_die (DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE (name), cv_quals,
reverse, context_die);
Where DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE (name) is a plain integer type:
constant 32>
unit-size constant 4>
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:-142864960 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x776215e8 precision:32 min max
pointer_to_this >
I am not 100% sure whether the GCC output is "strictly incorrect" DWARF, but at
the least
it is an inconsistency between clang and GCC.
Observed with gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0 and git master (GCC) 14.0.0
20230627 (experimental) on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #8 from Jan Žižka ---
Well then I apologize for stealing your time. I did try to search both BZ and
Internet and didn't hit any hints as what is happening and why exactly with gcc
13 if gcc 12 didn't "catch" these. I need to work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110202
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Note that vpxor serves as a dependency-breaking instruction (see PR 110438). So
in negate1 we do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and in negate2 we can
cause a substantial stall if the previous com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110438
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
We might want to omit PXOR when optimizing for size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that gfc_string_to_single_character does not fulfill my expectation.
The following ICEs now:
subroutine s
implicit none
interface
subroutine ref (c)
character:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110438
Bug ID: 110438
Summary: generating all-ones zmm needs dep-breaking pxor before
ternlog
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.zizka at nokia dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xvladsoft at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109554
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldv at sourceware dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot
ch
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sboisvert at gydle dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaydee at email dot cz
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arturo.laurenzi at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #6 from Jan Žižka ---
Thanks ;-) hope this BZ will at least help others if they hit the same thing to
understand the reasoning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Žižka from comment #3)
> Good thanks for pointer and clarification.
>
> Is there some reason this cannot be caught during compile time already? I
> mean the warning should be an error maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Werror=return-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #3 from Jan Žižka ---
Good thanks for pointer and clarification.
Is there some reason this cannot be caught during compile time already? I mean
the warning should be an error maybe? It would be much easier to fix in legacy
code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.1, 13.1.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.2|12.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
commit r12-9732-gee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
Author: Andrew Pinski
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
commit r12-9732-gee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110420
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
commit r12-9732-gee3bb7cb5d2ecfc64adcfd61afb390e72cc08661
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>With gcc 12.2 at least the same code doesn't trigger SIGILL.
Well in GCC 13+ at -O0 and -Og, GCC behavior changed from being fully undefined
to be trapping for folks to try to catch instead of saying they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the meantime Bill opened pr110419 and posted:
spawn [open ...]
by value(kind=1): B
by value(kind=1): A
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110437
Bug ID: 110437
Summary: SIGILL when return missing in a C++ function with a
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110435
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110435
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
commit r13-7484-g81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
Author: Andrew Pinski
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110420
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
commit r13-7484-g81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
commit r13-7484-g81fa6dfe1691e93664ef3b4fa66c1e057acea281
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
commit r14-2133-g478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
commit r14-2133-g478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110420
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
commit r14-2133-g478840a2ca491fbff44371caee4983d1e7b7b7cf
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110276
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110276
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7085905d7842e71af7a59c7d20d050716dd22e9b
commit r13-7483-g7085905d7842e71af7a59c7d20d050716dd22e9b
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110436
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Meant to say I'll look at it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110436
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |avieira at gcc dot
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Yes, it was fixed by r11-4187 but the problem is still present on the gcc-10
> branch.
I think that commit simply makes it possible to use oneTBB, which d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77650
--- Comment #8 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
for record purpose, the code in glibc has already been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611220.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110436
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110436
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009
--- Comment #12 from Surya Kumari Jangala ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
> > Yes, you'll need to factor in the BB frequency. Since the save/restore code
> > will go into (at this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009
--- Comment #11 from Surya Kumari Jangala ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
> (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #8)
> > However, while computing the save/restore cost, we are considering only the
> > memory move cost b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110435
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110432
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sascha Scandella from comment #2)
> I think this would also be a solution. Would this then be included in a
> future GCC 13.2?
Yes
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> @Jonathan is th
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
