https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Yes, something like this should work. I suggest to polish up a patch
> with this also containing the backend pattern adjustments and post it
> for review. The alternative is a convert optab for vec_pack_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I hope to get to this during stage3/4, I think it should be relatively easy to
detect, not exactly sure where to place the actual mitigation yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
>
> --- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115521
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The test still ICEs with current mainline, but -std=c11 compile flag needs to
be added.
cc1 -O1 -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dominator-opts -std=c11 pr115521.c:
pr115521.c: In function ‘bi’:
pr115521.c:188:1: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iansseijelly at berkeley dot
edu
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114567
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59655&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
Bug ID: 117723
Summary: Miscompile with -O1 and -O0/2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58872
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
--- Comment #5 from Haochen Jiang ---
Patch with change Hongtao proposed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/669647.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > It doesn't even unambiguously specify whether the mode is that of the source
> > or the destination. The original i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
--- Comment #3 from Haochen Jiang ---
Proposed change:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_2-vmovd-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_2-vmovd-1.c
index 6a5d84ac6cd..be1631f3060 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70967
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is needed any more since there are now builtins for them:
__builtin_stdc_rotate_left
__builtin_stdc_rotate_right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117722
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
Take x86_64 perf data for 625 base, x264_pixel_satd_8x4 is the hottest func.
Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
+ 19.26%18.96% x264_s_base.non x264_s_base.none [.]
x264_pixel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117721
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #0)
> gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
This is compiling some explict vector code, so I wouldn't expect this to run on
power4, but it does. I would have thought the dg-requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117722
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
OK. I see we are lacking ssadd/usad pattern (SAD_EXPR):
Compute the sum of absolute differences of two signed/unsigned elements.
Operand 1 and operand 2 are of the same mode. Their absolute difference, which
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117721
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #0)
> gcc.target/powerpc/pr92488.c
This is a DFP runtime test and it seems for pre-power6 (ie, pre DFP hardware
insns), we get a precision difference with power6 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117722
Bug ID: 117722
Summary: RISC-V: Failed to vectorize x264_pixel_sad_4x4
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117721
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #0)
> I build a GCC trunk on the gcc110 cfarm system. I got the following
> failures when I built GCC without using --with-cpu=. These failures
> are gone if I us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #8 from Sunil Dora ---
Thank you so much Marek.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
--- Comment #2 from Haochen Jiang ---
I see, let me change that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117718
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
With the scalar version, we have in the fwprop dump:
propagating insn 5 into insn 6, replacing:
(set (reg:DI 120 [ var ])
(mem/c:DI (reg/f:DI 119) [1 var+0 S8 A64]))
successfully matched this instructio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117721
Bug ID: 117721
Summary: Big endian test suite failures comparing default cpu
and --with-cpu=power7
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117645
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Problem goes away if I add support for small integers to addti3 (and subti3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
even doing:
```
void f(const TestClass *a)
{
// But this fails when checking from inside the class.
static_assert( ArrayElemCount( a->m_array ) == 10 );
}
```
Will fail as `a->m_array ` is NOT a cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This works though:
static_assert( std::size( decltype(m_array){} ) == 10 );
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117700, which changed state.
Bug 117700 Summary: spurious error "non-constant condition" when inside a class
member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #19 from Tamar Christina ---
The failing tests on the branch are:
#include
#define TYPE double
#define N 200
void fms180snd(_Complex TYPE a[restrict N], _Complex TYPE b[restrict N],
_Complex TYPE c[restrict N]) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117703
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117695
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
so this code is undefined for a few different reasons.
#1 is you can't call fprintf from an async signal (e.g. SIGALARM).
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Formatted-Output-Functions.html
sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117703
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26f3efccaa760ca74ad6e2584ce3056c889fe246
commit r15-5534-g26f3efccaa760ca74ad6e2584ce3056c889fe246
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83135
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59252
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59654&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Smaller testcase for easier debugging. It appears essential that the ultimate
comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83135
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c130e410ac45d1bfca0c9d584603b726f58e0ac
commit r15-5533-g3c130e410ac45d1bfca0c9d584603b726f58e0ac
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think the problem is in peep2_find_free_register:
> /* Don't use registers set or clobbered by the insn. */
> FOR_EACH_INSN_DEF (def, peep2_ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/define_005fpeephole2.html#index-define_005fpeephole2
gives an impression if the scratch register is needed not to conflicting with
the output then a match_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114266
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5cebf7e4491ea0306a072ca3368d771a5ff9455
commit r15-5532-gd5cebf7e4491ea0306a072ca3368d771a5ff9455
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114266
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117677
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117720
Bug ID: 117720
Summary: [15 regression] ICE compiling
gcc.target/powerpc/pr110776.c after
r15-5523-g2383ed144b54be
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109073
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83135
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117703
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think the problem is in peep2_find_free_register:
> /* Don't use registers set or clobbered by the insn. */
> FOR_EACH_INSN_DEF (def, peep2_insn_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |
|il/gcc/2024-Novembe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
For 13, we need this:
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
@@ -13851,11 +13851,12 @@ warn_for_range_copy (tree decl, tree expr)
else if (!CP_TYPE_CONST_P (type))
return;
- /* Since small
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||105867
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117719
Bug ID: 117719
Summary: Wdangling-pointer false positive for store to heap
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
--- Comment #7 from R. Diez ---
About using C++ exceptions without RTTI, I tried to build a toolchain for ARM
(arm-none-eabi) with -fno-rtti, and I got the following compilation errors
(they may be more):
File eh_arm.cc:
[...]/gcc-14.2.0/libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
--- Comment #6 from R. Diez ---
I do not understand why you say that RTTI "names" merely need to be unique.
The specification for "const char* name() const;", which I quoted in my first
post, says "the returned string can be identical for sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117718
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-20
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117718
Bug ID: 117718
Summary: Inefficient address computation for d-form vector
loads
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116587
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56fc6a6d9edc9f9170285ef31c7f312608fad88c
commit r15-5529-g56fc6a6d9edc9f9170285ef31c7f312608fad88c
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Antoni Boucher :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87f0136fa46c9b0352aa47f637d2f6678b8beb5b
commit r15-5528-g87f0136fa46c9b0352aa47f637d2f6678b8beb5b
Author: Antoni Boucher
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117680
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:beab0a3ecb2fa839295869fcff1c10237b99d085
commit r15-5527-gbeab0a3ecb2fa839295869fcff1c10237b99d085
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #17)
> Should we reopen and change component?
We did get a report for arm now too; PR 117712 which is recording the issue
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59650&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #17 from John David Anglin ---
Should we reopen and change component?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117645
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 59653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59653&action=edit
Prelinary patch to split TImode addti3
Still doesn't work. After reload we have:
(code_label 163 15 160
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
--- Comment #4 from Chengyi Zhang ---
Created attachment 59651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59651&action=edit
temporary .i file for -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
--- Comment #6 from Chengyi Zhang ---
More bug report information:
GCC version: gcc (conda-forge gcc 14.2.0-1) 14.2.0
system: x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) w5-3425
GCC was pre-built.
Issue: GCC performance is poor with autovectorization under -O2 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
--- Comment #5 from Chengyi Zhang ---
Created attachment 59652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59652&action=edit
source sort.c file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Eric B. reported this will be an issue for sparc too:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525#c16
So the question becomes what is the right fix h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e74f3eb1897745706b7b4d10bb60fc7f28f25b5e
commit r15-5526-ge74f3eb1897745706b7b4d10bb60fc7f28f25b5e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SLP of bubble sort is |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Chengyi Zhang from comment #0)
> See: https://github.com/iansseijelly/what-is-wrong/tree/main for scripts and
> code to reproduce the issue.
>
Please always attach everything necessary, per https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117717
Bug ID: 117717
Summary: Auto-vectorization resulting in poor performance
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117698
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2383ed144b54be6bae5ba5aec8859c6c2e215daf
commit r15-5523-g2383ed144b54be6bae5ba5aec8859c6c2e215daf
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117682
--- Comment #2 from Patrick O'Neill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Possibly -fno-vect-cost-model allows bisecting to something else.
No dice - the change is emitting an insn count for more patterns rather than
immediately fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117715
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I'm sure this is PR114189, sparc needs to transition to vec_cmp{,u,_eq} and
vec_cond_mask expanders.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117709
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5bd88b5e874751d17a2f18c1cfc5bd054da8308
commit r15-5524-gf5bd88b5e874751d17a2f18c1cfc5bd054da8308
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117709
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Yes, that fixes the issue, thanks.
The only diff in the assembly now, compared to before the "else" patch, is the
zero-initialization is gone. This is good; the mysterious extra code seemed
like a step back
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 09:43:46PM +0530, AKASH MISHRA via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Hi Team,
> there is a bug , compiler not reporting error or warning while calling a
> function with parentheses.
>
> For ex:
>
> void func()
> {
> printf("Hi i am in func");
> }
>
> main()
> {
> // call the func here wi
Hi Team,
there is a bug , compiler not reporting error or warning while calling a
function with parentheses.
For ex:
void func()
{
printf("Hi i am in func");
}
main()
{
// call the func here without parentheses
func; // here even though we miss parentheses, no error reported , neither
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117677
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Note that the bot uses --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=intel --with-fpmath=sse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117544
Palmer Dabbelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117709
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I think it also shows that the openMP SIMD handling for the SIMD vars lacks
optimization:
int D.2004[64];
int D.2003[64];
int D.2001[64];
...
those were supposed to be vector registers in the end,
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
