https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 13.3 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab3b83afc149edda11fa3c7cbb3815606731003b
commit r13-8636-gab3b83afc149edda11fa3c7cbb3815606731003b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9451b6c0a941dc44ca6f14ff8565d74fe56cca59
commit r14-10039-g9451b6c0a941dc44ca6f14ff8565d74fe56cca59
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f295847a9c32081bdd0fe908ffba58e830a24fb
commit r14-10035-g9f295847a9c32081bdd0fe908ffba58e830a24fb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Heh, crossed :-) I can confirm my patch works (tested and everything). I have
no idea about zero_extract, which is a blight that should be eradicated tooth
and
nail!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
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=114768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/rtlanal.cc.jj 2024-02-24 12:45:28.674249100 +0100
+++ gcc/rtlanal.cc 2024-04-18 15:09:55.199499083 +0200
@@ -1637,12 +1637,15 @@ set_noop_p (const_rtx set)
return true;
if (MEM_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It's the combine pass that removes the seemingly noop-move.
For QOI reasons GCC preserves volatile accesses elsewhere even when
inconsistency is directly visible like here.
11 matches
Mail list logo