https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55833&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
So there is a pattern for:
/* Simplify ((C <> x) & D) != 0 where C and D are power of two constants,
either to false if D is smaller (unsigned comparison) than C, or to
x == log2 (D) - log2 (C). Simi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that it's tripping over a BIND_EXPR with a null BIND_EXPR_BLOCK.
The attached patch stops the testcase from ICE'ing but hasn't been otherwise
tested yet.
I'm not sure what a null B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55832&action=edit
first attempt at fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103536
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with `--param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0` this is optimized earlier
due to getting many bb instead of
```
_1 = a_4(D) | b_5(D);
if (_1 != 0)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
_2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31889
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Except it is no longer fixed by that. That broke in GCC 10.
It broke in GCC 10 because we now have:
```
if (_10 < _12)
goto ; [1.04%]
else
goto ; [9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25643
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the difference now is:
```
void f0(int n, float *v)
{
int i;
if (n <= 0)
return;
else
{
i = 1;
do {
if (i > n) __builtin_abort ();
v[i] = 0.0;
i++;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
Bug ID: 111276
Summary: rewrite_to_defined_overflow rewrites already defined
code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #19 from Gašper Ažman ---
Correct, the use of the capture is the source of the error, not the
instantiation with an unrelated type.
On Sat, Sep 2, 2023, 09:54 waffl3x at protonmail dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111275
Bug ID: 111275
Summary: ifcombine and reassociation does not like to produce
`a ^ b` sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111273
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not an error, it's a warning.
It's only an error because you asked for it to be an error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110413
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I noticed on many of these, the return value of the static function is an
address (constant). Seems like we could do something like IPA-CCP for return
values. And that will fix almost all of them ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to François Dumont from comment #7)
> > Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-02
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> So maybe:
> ```
> (simplify
> (cond
> (eq:c@3 (convert1? @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
> (convert2? @0)
> INTEGER_CST@2
> )
> (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type))
> (con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
$ git bisect good 143151ac2013c22e
53891f18f32588d86ba0ec1c5e6206df63be714b is the first bad commit
commit 53891f18f32588d86ba0ec1c5e6206df63be714b
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date: Thu Aug 24 17:35:00 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Git range is g:4024ddbe50c2d1cb .. g:87f9b6c2cfd7b829,
so 9 commits left.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
All the OpenMP commits in that range are by Sandra Loosemore
.
Not sure yet, but a likely candidate so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
In git, there are 71 commits, so trying g:c28c579f0dd9cd27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110529
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|-Wanalyzer-null-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111213
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds|-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code seems to be:
struct _Vector_base {
~_Vector_base();
};
int ColumnSmallestLastOrdering_OMP_i_MaxNumThreads,
ColumnSmallestLastOrdering_OMP_i_MaxDegree;
void ColumnSmallestLastOrderin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
Bug ID: 111274
Summary: ice in fixup_blocks_walker with -O1 and -fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #7)
> Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
Well, I thought I have th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #18 from waffl3x ---
(In reply to Gašper Ažman from comment #17)
> Read through the patch quickly, want to suggest a few tests.
>
> When a lambda has captures, the explicit object parameter is used to get at
> them *silently*, if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Patch posted:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629018.html
>
> What I can do is exte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
For sure _Hash_node layout didn't change, that's why I couldn't think of any
abi issue here.
I see that you already had the solution ! It was some kind of test then, I
failed :-).
Did you try it ? If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |
|il/gcc-patches/2023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
38 matches
Mail list logo
