https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] std::vector |[15 regression] std::vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116398
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Part of the reason why late_combine1 fails to do anything here is:
```
// Avoid increasing the complexity of instructions that
// reference allocatable hard registers.
if (!REG_P (SET_SRC (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So going back to the question of why late combine fails here.
We have:
```
(set x0 (eq ...)
(set pc (if_then_else (eq x0 (const_int 0)) label pc)
(set (mem) x0)
...
(set x0 (mem))
label:
x0 = phi
(use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118767
Bug ID: 118767
Summary: [ICE] internal compiler error: segmentation fault when
using more than one placeholder "_" during
destructuring in range-based-for loop
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
Pranav Gorantla changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Pranav.Gorantla at amd dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #102 from LIU Hao ---
I have bootstrapped GCC 15 with native TLS on {i686,x86_64}-w64-mingw32, and
have rebuilt these packages; no issues have been observed so far:
* mingw-w64
* mcfgthread
* binutils
* gdb
* mpdecimal
* mpfr
* icu
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118530
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 60350 [details]
> > ira: Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x
>
> NOTE, r15-1619-g3b9b8d6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
>
> Let me see if adding them can help here too.
It didn't help. Though I think it might be useful to have. But for GCC 16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116294
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
This one still fails for me on trunk. It should be easier to reduce now that
PR116336 seems fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116336
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
This works for me on trunk now. I assume Vlad's fix for PR116234 may have done
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot
gnu.org
Kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #439 from Oleg Endo ---
Could be relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/675179.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
So fwprop can't do this
```
propagating insn 11 into insn 12, replacing:
(set (reg:QI 107 [ _3 ])
(subreg:QI (reg:SI 108) 0))
failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:QI 107 [ _3 ])
(subreg:QI (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> propagating insn 11 into insn 12, replacing:
> (set (reg:QI 107 [ _3 ])
> (subreg:QI (reg:SI 108) 0))
> failed to match this instruction:
> (set (reg:QI 107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
propagating insn 11 into insn 12, replacing:
(set (reg:QI 107 [ _3 ])
(subreg:QI (reg:SI 108) 0))
failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:QI 107 [ _3 ])
(subreg:QI (eq:SI (reg:CC 66 cc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 118759 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118759
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116829
--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Trnka ---
I have sent a candidate fix for this to the mailing list in the past (and then
somehow forgot about it):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-September/061086.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #9 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Test case:
typedef struct q { int x; } q_t;
struct q { int x; };
typedef struct q { int x; } q_t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118766
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60390&action=edit
simplified testcase
If we don't have WORKS defined, then GCC works. Once you add another definition
of `union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #8 from Hime Haieto ---
Alright, so apparently the union example is no longer valid (and the comments
you referenced were interesting, and I'd have never found them otherwise!), so
yes, scratch that one - the only issue here is for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118766
Bug ID: 118766
Summary: Garbled error message in vararg requires
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118747
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue in comment#2 is fixed by the following - I'd say obvious - patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index 017f184f179..81fa8756a91 100644
--- a/gcc/fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60390|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
What do you mean by "doesn't work"? Please state both what you expect (based on
C23 with bug fixes that postdate the integration of the original proposal) and
what you see. As per CD1 comments GB-032 and F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
You're right - I used a mangled version of the testcase when playing, sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that rules for unions were changed after N3037.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
--- Comment #2 from Hime Haieto ---
Odd - I don't see any difference on trunk other than the addition of a helpful
note message (nice!). However, I'm testing trunk via godbolt, so I don't know
if its trunk might be slightly older.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116829
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-05
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118763
--- Comment #1 from Valentin Tolmer ---
Potentially related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113579
Though in this case, I'm pretty sure according to the docs, it's not undefined
behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118765
Bug ID: 118765
Summary: c23 tag matching broken for multiple redeclarations of
unions and typedefs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #27 from Joseph S. Myers ---
That's not redundant, the previous calculation is in FE_TOWARDZERO mode, before
the call to libc_feupdateenv_test. But maybe that call needs to be followed by
"a1 = math_opt_barrier (a1);" or similar to e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #26 from John David Anglin ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #23)
> hppa is an after-rounding architecture and this test is only meant to
> produce underflow on before-rounding architectures. You should investigate
> why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60388&action=edit
Better reduced testcase from PR 118758
This one is slightly better than the one in comment #26 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118758 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
/testsuite $ ~/gcc/results.20250205/bin/gcc -c
-g -O2 -march=native ./gcc.target/s390/preserve-args-2.c
during RTL pass: dwarf2
./gcc.target/s390/preserve-args-2.c: In function ‘baz’:
./gcc.target/s390/preserve-args-2.c:19:1: internal compiler error: in
maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591
19 | }
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60386|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60386&action=edit
Slightly reduced
Still a few more steps to go but wanted to attach what I have so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
For me this doesn't occur on the trunk anymore and I bisected the working
change to:
r15-3459-gcbea72b265e4c9
Author: Raphael Moreira Zinsly
Date: Wed Sep 4 17:21:24 2024 -0600
[PATCH 1/3] RISC-V: Impr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118759
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60385
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60385&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118764
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118764
Bug ID: 118764
Summary: [avr] Add support for Compact Vector Table
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118319
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118388
Bug 118388 depends on bug 118319, which changed state.
Bug 118319 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault in friend
declaration with default argument assigned to an empty lambda expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 118319, which changed state.
Bug 118319 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault in friend
declaration with default argument assigned to an empty lambda expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118319
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:198f4df07d6a1db9c8ef39536da56c1b596c57a8
commit r15-7380-g198f4df07d6a1db9c8ef39536da56c1b596c57a8
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118763
Bug ID: 118763
Summary: [12/13/14/15 regression] memory leak involving early
return from statement expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118762
Bug ID: 118762
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/modules/pr98893_b.C -std=c++2b
scan-assembler __tcf_ZL1b:
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98545441308c2ae4d535f14b108ad6551fd927d5
commit r15-7379-g98545441308c2ae4d535f14b108ad6551fd927d5
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70349
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
On hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 at revision r15-7342-gd3627c78be1, we have the following
new fails:
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/abi-tag18a.C -std=gnu++17 scan-assembler
_ZZZ1fB7__test1vEN1T1gEvE1x
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/abi-tag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #25 from John David Anglin ---
The unions in this code have been completely optimized away making
this code very difficult to debug. I worry that there is a disconnect
between the floating and integer values in the unions. Float co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Previously we returned 'id' here but no longer:
if (template_keyword_p)
{
tree scope = (parser->scope ? parser->scope
: parser->context->object_type);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118746
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118746
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0006c07b7ac6594195d5db322e39907203be4c2a
commit r15-7378-g0006c07b7ac6594195d5db322e39907203be4c2a
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118749
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I think it is better to keep summaries short and have full hashes only in
> the body.
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] fontconfig |[15 regression] fontconfig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
-fno-ipa-cp works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117818
--- Comment #7 from Steven Munroe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> is that powerpc64le or powerpc{,64} big endian? (or both)
Definitely powerpc64le because few distros support powerpc targets.
I think the lasts GCC I have th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to start sometime between 20241217 and 20241231:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241217/bin/gcc -O3 -w bug1086.c &&
./a.out
checksum = E0BB38EE
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241231
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118549
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118752
--- Comment #1 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Perhaps clang::no_stack_protector, too. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> I will look into a bisection.
The problem seems to exist sometime before 20241231 with g:0b06abe027a78681
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think the first thing we could do is (from fwprop1):
> ```
> propagating insn 13 into insn 14, replacing:
> (set (reg:SI 103 [ _3 ])
> (reg/v:SI 104 [ ]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Then sometimes once cvise has cleaned up a bunch of crap, it's often obvious
what the problem is, but if not, I let it run to completion. Anyway, I'll
continue reducing here, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
The original code is from csmith, so:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w -O1 bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 >
/tmp/1
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118761
--- Comment #1 from Marc Poulhiès ---
(same inconsistent behavior with "--help --verbose")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like we are losing that `typename` was used here:
if (TREE_CODE (f) != TYPENAME_TYPE)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118761
Bug ID: 118761
Summary: gm2 driver doesn't behave as gcc for --help=BLA
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I will look into a bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118760
Bug ID: 118760
Summary: Alias template in dependent base used via
injected-class-name incorrectly rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Reducing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16233
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118759
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Ah, sorry, I'd forgot about that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|clyon at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118759
Bug ID: 118759
Summary: [15 regression] ICE when building openmsx-19.1
(exact_div, at poly-int.h:2160)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
Bug ID: 118758
Summary: [15 regression] ok code with -O2, but wrong code with
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #24 from Joseph S. Myers ---
See my previous comment about possible code movement / need for more usage of
math_opt_barrier. Maybe the a1 + u.d computation got moved before the rounding
mode was restored, or something like that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118757
Bug ID: 118757
Summary: Waiting for stored pointer inside
std::atomic>
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #23 from Joseph S. Myers ---
hppa is an after-rounding architecture and this test is only meant to produce
underflow on before-rounding architectures. You should investigate why the code
in question is entered at all. I'd have expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #22 from John David Anglin ---
Actually, it appears the multiplication by 0.25 can be avoided by
setting w directly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118755
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the first thing we could do is (from fwprop1):
```
propagating insn 13 into insn 14, replacing:
(set (reg:SI 103 [ _3 ])
(reg/v:SI 104 [ ]))
successfully matched this instruction to *zero_extend
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
