https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111825
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111858
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hm, I can't reproduce. Maybe fixed by r14-4682-g323209cd73bf1d?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654
--- Comment #6 from Julian Waters ---
Sorry for the late reply, I was busy with certain things
Are we going with numeric invalid-noreturn or explicit-noreturn +
implicit-noreturn? I'm not to sure how to implement the latter, if we're going
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111859
Bug ID: 111859
Summary: 521.wrf_r build failure with -O2 -march=cascadelake
--param vect-partial-vector-usage=2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111859
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Could be reproduced with:
tar zxvf 521.tar.gz
cd 521
gfortran module_advect_em.fppizedi.f90 -S -O2 -march=cascadelake --param
vect-partial-vector-usage=2 -std=legacy -fconvert=big-endian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Bug ID: 111860
Summary: error: stmt with wrong VUSE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111861
Bug ID: 111861
Summary: ranges::min/max should not use `auto __result =
*__first;`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be:
int optimize_path_n, optimize_path_d;
int *optimize_path_d_0;
extern void path_threeOpt( long);
void optimize_path() {
int i;
long length;
i = 0;
for (; i <= optimize_pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #70 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b39aeef594f311e2c1715f15608f1d7ebc2d868
commit r14-4713-g4b39aeef594f311e2c1715f15608f1d7ebc2d868
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #72 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04227acbe9e6c60d1e314a6b4f2d949c07f30baa
commit r14-4715-g04227acbe9e6c60d1e314a6b4f2d949c07f30baa
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #70 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b39aeef594f311e2c1715f15608f1d7ebc2d868
commit r14-4713-g4b39aeef594f311e2c1715f15608f1d7ebc2d868
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #73 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd28f90c95378bf8ebb82a3dfdf24a6ad190877a
commit r14-4716-gdd28f90c95378bf8ebb82a3dfdf24a6ad190877a
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111862
Bug ID: 111862
Summary: GCC: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
c_parser_omp_clause_reduction, at c/c-parser.cc:16234
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> You are mixing up 2 different things.
> First this is about if the operator new is valid and it is because there is
> a corresponding placement delete operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
As expected:
$ git bisect good 0c8522870effb87f9ea0f0f5897d5b0084c32b50
60c231cb65807fb963624acc4f82d2935e305f93 is the first bad commit
commit 60c231cb65807fb963624acc4f82d2935e305f93
Author: Tamar Chris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111858
--- Comment #2 from Levy Hsu ---
Checked the parent commit and confirmed r14-4682-g323209cd73bf1d fixed the ICE.
Thanks~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111858
Levy Hsu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111093
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3961765b506f75233e6ea144a80930629c3426b
commit r14-4718-gd3961765b506f75233e6ea144a80930629c3426b
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111093
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111845
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1744dd50bb1661c98b694ff907cb0a1be4f6134
commit r14-4719-gf1744dd50bb1661c98b694ff907cb0a1be4f6134
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111845
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Thank you for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
Bug ID: 111863
Summary: Wrong code with "-O3 -fno-tree-ccp
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-vrp"
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 56139
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56139&action=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #2 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
A reduced testcase:
$ cat a.c
#include
int a;
volatile int *b = &a;
volatile int **c = &b;
static int d = 1;
static int e() {
unsigned long f = 2;
*b = 0 || 5;
*b = ((**c & f) != d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Ok, so the problem is that the loop never creates memory references, and so
after redirecting the edges when we update the new references we do so by
trying to update the PHI nodes.
But since the loop has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111601
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux |powerpc64le-linux
|x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111850
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it does look like an improvement ad I doubt the number of addis really
matters. That's why I said the test probably just needs to be updated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] Wrong code |[14 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111773
--- Comment #6 from Vlad Yaglamunov ---
I agree with Richard's explanation. Seems like my first example is an undefined
behavior. In section [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] par 2, in C++17, was added
the following: "Furthermore, for the library a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111864
Bug ID: 111864
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-4038-gb975c0dc3be
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111753
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ICE: in |[14 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
Bug ID: 111865
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: symtab_node::verify
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111849
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker ---
I agree that volatile isn't the best way to handle memcpy suppression for other
purposes - it was just one of the methods I experimented with that led to me
discovering this issue, which I found surprising and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111852
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc4bd69faf986326f6b0fd0400cdd6871577afd1
commit r14-4722-gbc4bd69faf986326f6b0fd0400cdd6871577afd1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111808
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
A portability issue producing a compile failure is often better than one
where there is no error but the code misbehaves at runtime on some
platforms (a lot of code does not have good test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111866
Bug ID: 111866
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when compiling
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh I see the issue:
```
_8 = _7 & 2;
_10 = _8 != 1;
```
There needs to be a check that 1 here is the same as 2 or 0 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
Alberto Luaces changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aluaces at udc dot es
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Oh I see the issue:
> ```
> _8 = _7 & 2;
> _10 = _8 != 1;
>
> ```
>
> There needs to be a check that 1 here is the same as 2 or 0 ...
Wait I have that che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
--- Comment #8 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I think I’d forgotten that compiling páck3.ads on its own, rather than as
part of the closure, was the way to demonstrate this problem. It was NOT
fixed in darwin19 (it’s still present in darwin2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111866
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks for reporting! I'll debug.
I suspect another case where the vectorized and scalar loop were sneakily
swapped.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111866
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
--- Comment #9 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Created attachment 56140
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56140&action=edit
C demonstrator
As noted in comment 8, the C compiler doesn’t have a problem with
finding a file wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-07-04 00:00:00 |2023-10-18
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh I see the issue now, I am changing arg0 even if we don't do the thing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56141&action=edit
untested fix
This fixes the reuse of arg0 so we don't change it for the later on code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111852
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yup, thanks!
In another 4.8.5 breakage PR someone mentioned removing that as the minimum
required compiler level. Has there been any more discussion of that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111852
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In several gcc ml (or gcc-patches, don't remember) threads it was discussed
whether we should switch to C++14 as the implementation language, that would
bump to the bootstrap compiler requirement to GCC 5 (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:56:32PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from Alberto Luaces ---
> I got the same error in almost the same circumstances (crash in
> error.cc:1078).
>
> I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111863
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56142
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56142&action=edit
Reduced self-contained testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5e56c5857cc6b704446c3666213468d25f6dcb2
commit r13-7961-gf5e56c5857cc6b704446c3666213468d25f6dcb2
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111867
Bug ID: 111867
Summary: aarch64: Wrong code for bf16 literal load when the
arch support +fp16
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|aarch64-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111867
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe something like:
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
index 62b1ae0652f..db2dde84329 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111868
Bug ID: 111868
Summary: [14 regression] many ICEs after r14-4710
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111867
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Maybe something like:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> index 62b1ae0652f..db2dde84329 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111868
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111867
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Maybe something like:
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> > index 62b1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|GCC: 14: intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56143&action=edit
testcase that could go into the testsuite with more targets supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Created attachment 56143 [details]
> testcase that could go into the testsuite with more targets supported
Add:
```
#elif defined __aarch64__
# define ASM __asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61192
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||141242068 at smail dot
nju.edu.cn
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61192
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56144
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56144&action=edit
Another testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-18
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96347
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110500
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 111862 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ec8ecb8e92faec889bc6f7aeac9ff59e82b4f7f
commit r14-4726-g3ec8ecb8e92faec889bc6f7aeac9ff59e82b4f7f
Author: Prathamesh Kulkarn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110551
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111851
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111601
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111869
Bug ID: 111869
Summary: ICE: verify_ssa failed since r14-4710-g60c231cb658
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111791
--- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp ---
This is a scalar popcount and as Kito already noted we will just emit
cpop a0, a0
once the zbb extension is present.
As to the question what is actually being vectorized here, I'm not so sure :D
It looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111870
Bug ID: 111870
Summary: Miscompile of atomic rmw or on x86 (not aarch, though)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111870
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56145&action=edit
testcase
Next time please enter attach or place inline the testcase rather than just a
link.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111870
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or maybe the issue is you don't understand the cmpxchg instruction and how it
gives back the original value too.
The RTL form for the "lock;cmpxchg " is:
(insn:TI 14 10 17 5 (parallel [
(set (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111870
--- Comment #4 from isoosqa ---
Oops, I sent wrong code. This is the one https://godbolt.org/z/GxdvMdP76
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
