https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116244
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
>
> Richard Sandiford changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52366356fe7b638f66c4011b8a61fb6c22b08087
commit r15-7226-g52366356fe7b638f66c4011b8a61fb6c22b08087
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112859
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04ba1300407f106a6dd10d346f58a51d87e6d43e
commit r15-7225-g04ba1300407f106a6dd10d346f58a51d87e6d43e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115347
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04ba1300407f106a6dd10d346f58a51d87e6d43e
commit r15-7225-g04ba1300407f106a6dd10d346f58a51d87e6d43e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118563
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Schwab :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6977f765838a5ca8d321d916221a7368622bdd9
commit r15-7228-gc6977f765838a5ca8d321d916221a7368622bdd9
Author: Andreas Schwab
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118563
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #13 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so this also shows (latent) wrong-debug. While the vectorizer changes the
iteration space it does not adjust scalar compute that's supposed to be dead,
but DCE might end up deriving wrong debug stmts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
> Created attachment 60272
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60272&action=edit
> Proposed patch to correct offset and return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
Spencer Abson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Spencer.Abson at arm dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118501
--- Comment #13 from Matthias Klose ---
the backport requires some more work:
../../src/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md:7255:13: error: 'force_lowpart_subreg'
was not declared in this scope; did you mean 'lowpart_subreg'?
7255 | rtx op1 = forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Slightly more reduced
> __attribute__((noipa)) int
> foo (int x)
> {
> int a = x != -3, b, c;
> a *= 3;
> b = 2 * x - 9;
> a = a + b;
> a = ~a;
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118655
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 60288
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60288&action=edit
gcc15-pr118655.patch
Untested fix. Unsure whether we want to backport this to 14.3 or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118491
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So it's technically not a regression if GCC 14 didn't implement C++23 [range
> for] changes.
It is technically still a regression, range for loops written in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:343e1083eb9f57e05c0caba195f118ef2e95cc40
commit r15-7227-g343e1083eb9f57e05c0caba195f118ef2e95cc40
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #6 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |internal-improvement
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118501
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #13)
> the backport requires some more work:
>
> ../../src/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md:7255:13: error:
> 'force_lowpart_subreg' was not declared in this scope;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |tree-optimization
Assignee|hu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a510dea7f3b047d0650a48e558a4911973930eb
commit r15-7229-g6a510dea7f3b047d0650a48e558a4911973930eb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116244
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The failure is limited to reload which I don't think is used by any primary
target. On the other hand it trips building glibc, which makes it more
important in mind. On the whole I don't think it's P1 wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117670
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Julian Waters changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60160|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118490
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #4 from Richard Sandiford ---
Just to be sure I understand: is the PR simply about making the RTL
representation of the memory more correct? Or is it about generating different
code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|internal-improvement|wrong-code
Summary|Misalign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Before combine pass we have (_.297r.ud_dce):
(insn 7 4 9 2 (set (reg:V4QI 106 [ MEM [(type1
*)num_13(D)] ])
(mem:V4QI (reg/v/f:DI 105 [ num ]) [0 MEM
[(type1 *)num_13(D)]+0 S4 A8])) "pr118662.c":9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3600b1ff14a459e84bb40bdfea7cd8d2ffd73d8d
commit r15-7224-g3600b1ff14a459e84bb40bdfea7cd8d2ffd73d8d
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Mon J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118650
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
maybe also a thing for SSA backprop? Eliminating ops that only affect bits
masked by &? Or ops that only affect bits added by |?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115835
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |stefansf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92a5c5100c25190622ca86b63586a598952546bf
commit r15-7223-g92a5c5100c25190622ca86b63586a598952546bf
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118657
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
There's a VRP bug (with a patch from Jakub) that made VRP for array[i] with
constant initializer compute a range of the load based on the range of 'i'
(but obviously that can be expensive).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118669
>
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Sandiford ---
> Just to be sure I understand: is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118574
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Is KDE Plasma built with -std=gnu++20 or -std=gnu++17?
-std=gnu++20
> Perhaps as a workaround -fno-range-for-ext-temps option could help.
> If it is built with -st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch to address this on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6zfjce03l@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118663
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #8)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > > I cannot get the testcase to fail at all. Please give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
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=118638
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The wrong combination is the
Trying 9, 10 -> 17:
9: r107:SI=flags:CCZ!=0
REG_DEAD flags:CCZ
10: r107:SI=r107:SI*0x2+r107:SI
17: {r111:SI=sign_extract(r107:SI,0x1,0);clobber flags:CC;}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102018
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
Looking at dumps when compiling for cortex-m7 and cortex-m55, I noticed a
difference in the first gimple trace (pr82692.c.007t.gimple).
For m7, we have:
_1 = x u> 0.0;
_2 = ~_1;
_3 = x u<= 1.0e+0;
_4 = ~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> One possible improvement would be to move QImode value to %xmm1 and
V4QImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845
--- Comment #9 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou ---
This is optimized in x86 using -m32 during "combine", the problem is that the
test cases check for the optimization in GIMPLE. But, this isn't the case for
AArch64 using ILP32, which isn't optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The testcase now generates (-O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-vect-cost-model
-msse4):
addup:
pmovsxbd(%rdi), %xmm0
movd(%rdi), %xmm1
movdqa %xmm0, %xmm2
pextrb $3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118185
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d121d1e1dd874731a648086772e6c40e34fa5de9
commit r14-11251-gd121d1e1dd874731a648086772e6c40e34fa5de9
Author: Giuseppe D'Ang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100249
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d121d1e1dd874731a648086772e6c40e34fa5de9
commit r14-11251-gd121d1e1dd874731a648086772e6c40e34fa5de9
Author: Giuseppe D'An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107522
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0af8fc22338ef0dd09c9b469aafb19262aa8eeb9
commit r14-11250-g0af8fc22338ef0dd09c9b469aafb19262aa8eeb9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107522
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116524
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103284
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
Bug ID: 118673
Summary: [14/15 regression] LLVM's libMLIR miscompiled since
r14-1705-g2764335bd336f2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
If I drop the prints I added to getIntegerDotProductCapabilities, the
difference goes back to:
```
│ Disassembly of section .text._ZN4mlir5spirv6SDotOp15getCapabilitiesEv:
│
│ :
│ mlir::spirv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
The difference is visible with `g++ IntegerDotProductOps.cpp.ii -Os
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -c`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60295
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60295&action=edit
006t.gimple-diff.xz (+ is bad)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60294
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60294&action=edit
005t.original-diff.xz (+ is bad)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108454
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> The code crashing gfortran may actually be valid.
I set a breakpoint in parse.cc:7386
Breakpoint 1, gfc_parse_file () at ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
mlir::spirv::getIntegerDotProductExtensions:
-TARGET_EXPR >>
- (const Extension &) &extension }>, ._M_len=1}> >>;
+TARGET_EXPR >>;
+const struct ArrayRef * D.1250733;
+<<< Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60272|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118674
Bug ID: 118674
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118673
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
the main issue can be shown by (still need includes for SmallVector/ArrayRef):
```
enum class Extension : unsigned {
SPV_KHR_integer_dot_product = 17
};
[[gnu::noinline]]
llvm::SmallVector, 1>
getIntegerDo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118674
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118674
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|ICE: Segmentati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115769
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4d772356725ba7fd5e17835607d967d90cdcdaa
commit r15-7231-gf4d772356725ba7fd5e17835607d967d90cdcdaa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
Bug ID: 118671
Summary: [15 regression] ICE in
output_constructor_regular_field at, varasm.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116841
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118663
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > I cannot get the testcase to fail at all. Please give a failing command
> > line?
>
> I just used -O2 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Konstantinos Eleftheriou from comment #9)
> But, this isn't the case for AArch64 using ILP32, which isn't optimized at
> all.
We've just deprecated that, mind (doesn't negate that it could affect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Bug 94404 depends on bug 115769, which changed state.
Bug 115769 Summary: Implement CWG 2867 - Order of initialization for structured
bindings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115769
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So the bug is in
else if (GET_CODE (inner) == MULT
&& CONST_INT_P (XEXP (inner, 1))
&& pos_rtx == 0 && pos == 0)
{
/* We're extracting the least significant bits of an rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118661
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110993
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9104472b645f76a212af9f9c58378500f9ba937e
commit r15-7234-g9104472b645f76a212af9f9c58378500f9ba937e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115769
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad8e6a4ada0a7ed73ac99404ff2b41ed9dc5e940
commit r15-7230-gad8e6a4ada0a7ed73ac99404ff2b41ed9dc5e940
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 27.01.2025 um 17:38 schrieb ubizjak at gmail dot com
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118662
>
> --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> The testcase now generates (-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
make_compound_operation_int incorrectly turns
(ashiftrt:SI (ashift:SI (mult:SI (reg:SI 107 [ a_5 ])
(const_int 3 [0x3]))
(const_int 31 [0x1f]))
(const_int 31 [0x1f]))
into
(mult:SI (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116524
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d450dee7112635a541c5a34268d54f63da48f71
commit r15-7233-g9d450dee7112635a541c5a34268d54f63da48f71
Author: John David Anglin
D
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
