https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
> My experience is memory cost for the operand with rm or separate r, m is
> different which impacts RA decision.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595573.html
Change operands[1] alterna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> It looks that different modes of memory read confuse LRA to not CSE the read.
>
> IMO, if the preloaded value is later accessed in different modes, LRA should
> leave it. Alternatively, LRA should CSE m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
unsigned v;
long long v2;
char foo ()
{
v2 = v;
return v;
}
This is related to *movqi_internal, and codegen has been worse since gcc8.1
foo:
movlv(%rip), %eax
movq%rax, v2(%r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
short a;
short c;
short d;
void
foo (short b, short f)
{
c = b + a;
d = f + a;
}
foo(short, short):
addwa(%rip), %di
addwa(%rip), %si
movw%di, c(%rip)
movw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
--- Comment #19 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Both of the posted patches are incorrect, this needs to be fixed in
> asan_emit_stack_protection, account for the different offsets[0] which
> happens when a sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao Liu ---
> I don't see this as problematic. IIRC, there was a discussion in the past
> that a couple (two?) memory accesses from the same location close to each
> other can be faster (so, -O2, not -Os) than preloading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> 4952 /* See if a MEM has already been loaded with a widening operation;
> 4953 if it has, we can use a subreg of that. Many CISC machines
> 4954 also have such operations, but this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> Looks like ix86_vect_estimate_reg_pressure doesn't work here, taking a look.
Oh, ix86_vect_estimate_reg_pressure is only for loop, BB vectorizer only use
ix86_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> > Looks like ix86_vect_estimate_reg_pressure doesn't work here, taking a look.
>
> Oh, ix86_vect_estimate_reg_pressure is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85048
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85048
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #15)
> So it seems that if at least one of the vector builtins involved in the
> expression is 512 bits GCC needs to locally increase prefer-vector-width to
> 512
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110621
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
during GIMPLE pass: vect
dump file: module_cam_mp_ndrop.fppized.f90.179t.vect
module_cam_mp_ndrop.fppized.f90:33:27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114883
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you reduce the fortran code down for the ICE? It should not be hard, you
> can use delta even.
Let me try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114883
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
Created attachment 58066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58066&action=edit
reproduced testcase
gfortran -O2 -march=x86-64-v4 -fvect-cost-model=cheap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114883
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
index a6cf0a5546c..ae6abe00f3e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
@@ -8505,7 +8505,8 @@ vect_transform_reduction (loop_vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114883
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> index a6cf0a5546c..ae6abe00f3e 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114883
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 58073 [details]
> gcc14-pr114883.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
This will fix 521.wrf_r ICE, and pass runtime validation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114907
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114943
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113079
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113090
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
typedef signed char v16qi __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
v16qi foo (v16qi x) { return x >> 5; }
with -march=x86-64-v4 -O2, GCC 13.2 gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114987
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
> I tried to move "vmovdqa %xmm1,0xd0(%rsp)" before "vmovdqa %xmm0,0xe0(%rsp)"
> and rebuilt the binary and it will save half the regression.
57.93 │200: vaddps 0xc0(%rsp),%ymm3,%ymm5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Commen
: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When I'm working on turning cunrolli, I found if cunrollis is disabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115115
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114514
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
typedef char v16qi __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v16qi
__attribute__((noipa))
foo (v16qi a)
{
v16qi c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Krzysztof Kanas from comment #4)
> I bisected the issue and it seems that commit
> 0368fc54bc11f15bfa0ed9913fd0017815dfaa5d introduces regression.
I guess the real guilty commit is
commit 52ff3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> A patch like Comment 8 could definitely solve the problem. But I need to
> test more benchmarks to see if there is surprise.
>
> But, yes, as Uros said in Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> > > > A patch like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Should we also run a SPEC on with -O2 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64-v3 to see
> if there is any surprise?
Sure, I guess no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115021
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #3)
> I found compiler allocates mem to the third source register of vpternlog in
> IRA after commit f55cdce3f8dd8503e080e35be59c5f5390f6d95e. And it cause the
> generate code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114427
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Any of the floating point to integer intrinsics if they have out of range
> value (haven't checked whether floating point to unsigned intrinsic is a
> problem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> That said, this change really won't help the backend which supposedly should
> have the same behavior regardless of -fno-trapping-math, because in that
> case it is the value
> of the result (which is u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> To investigate further, I've added comparison functions to a reduced
> version of pr106010-7b.c, with
>
> void
> cmp_epi8 (_Complex unsigned char*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #25 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> I don't think the cost of using UNSPEC would be significant if the backend
> tried to constant fold more target builtins. Anyway, with the proposed
> changes pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115146
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67325
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 112325, which changed state.
Bug 112325 Summary: Missed vectorization of reduction after unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
--- Comment #25 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #22)
> Why are we adding an alignment requirement to _mm_storel_pd, the intrinsic
> for MOVLPD?
>
>From Intel intrinsic guide[1], there's explict "mem_addr does not need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
--- Comment #26 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #25)
> (In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #22)
> > Why are we adding an alignment requirement to _mm_storel_pd, the intrinsic
> > for MOVLPD?
> >
> From Intel intrins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114125
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
void f(double*d,double*e){
for(;d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115299
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Maybe r14-53-g675b1a7f113adb .
Probably, current cost model may need adjustment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113609
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115299
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
index dea6cca3b86..143903beab2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr11232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115341
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115351
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114428
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
pr100927.c.349r.final:(fix:SI (reg:SF 32 0 [120])))
"../../gcc/intel-innersource/pr115365/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr100927.c":12:10
428 {*fix_truncsfsi2_p8}
pr100927.c.349r.final: (expr_list:REG_EQUIV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43618
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43618
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
int
foo (unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned d, unsigned e, int* p)
{
unsigned int r;
int c = __builtin_mul_overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115370
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
> Unfortunately, the fix broke 32-bit Solaris/SPARC in exchange:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr100927.c scan-rtl-dump-times final "(?n)(fix:SI" 3
>
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112532
--- Comment #5 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> btw: if you change your email on bugzilla to liuho...@gcc.gnu.org, you'll
> get more permissions to edit bugs.
Ok, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #4 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to liuhongt from comment #3)
> BB vectorizer relies on the backend support of .REDUC_PLUS for reduction,
> but loop vectorizer can manually do reduction. That's w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112532
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112547
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 112325
Target Milestone: ---
This is from PR112325
unsigned
foo (un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #1 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D) >> 1, type of def:
internal
test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D), type of def:
external
test.c:28:8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #2 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Got vectorized after change source code to
unsigned
foo (unsigned * restrict s, unsigned qh, unsigned * restrict qs) {
unsigned int sumi = 0;
sumi += (qh >> 16);
sumi += (q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #3 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to liuhongt from comment #1)
> test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand qh_16(D) >> 1, type of def:
> internal
> test.c:28:8: note: vect_is_simple_use:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112579
--- Comment #4 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> or normally, it should splitted into groups size 4 + 4 + 3 and vectorize for
> 2 group size 4.
/* Try to break the group up into pieces. */
if (kind == slp_inst_kind_store
Cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111972
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111972
--- Comment #14 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to liuhongt from comment #12)
> >
> > Is there any progress for this?
>
> I have a patch ready to post for thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102543
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107261
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107057
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107322
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111907
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111225
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111062
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111061
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110788
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109504
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110591
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110227
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110438
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Note the testcase which ICEs is now:
> ```
> typedef int v32qi __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=core-avx2", "default"))) v32q
101 - 200 of 566 matches
Mail list logo
