https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
Priority|P3
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, the vectorizer emits
vect_cst__41 = { 0.0, 0.0 };
vect_cst__42 = { -1.0e+0, -1.0e+0 };
...
vect__1.7_37 = MEM [(double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Note the testcase does not ICE so ice-on-invalid is wrong. It's really
> > a diagnostic only. If we want sth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|ICE when buildi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
We're currently represe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > Fixed on trunk sofar.
>
> Is there anything I can help to get this backported to 10? I applied your
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c+
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95781
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95783
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95784
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I wouldn't be surprised if a version with a branch is faster even with each
of the branches mispredicted. cmovs are weird beasts but since they
are not dependent on each other their latency at least shouldn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95801
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I have a patch exploiting this but it faces some correctness issues in the
propagators where some of them instantiate the assumptions before simplifying
the stmts themselves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95801
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48768&action=edit
prototype
Here is the WIP patch, work is suspended. There may be a duplicate bug about
this.
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. We seem to end up with a reduction partition not in the last
position thus miss some required partition merging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rsandifo at sources dot redhat.com |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10/11 Regression]|[8/9/10/11 Regression]
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|regression |middle-end
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90594
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Sorry, I get easily distracted. The while the "prerequesite" is ready the
actual fix is not. I'll see whether to at least get that prerequesite
pushed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[8/9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-23
Component|debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95840
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think on trunk this has been fixed with
g:b19d8aac15649f31a7588b2634411a1922906ea8
2020-06-03 Romain Naour
* Makefile.in (SELFTEST_DEPS): Move before including language makefile
fragme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks||53947
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-23
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Summary|Internal error w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE |[9 Regression] ICE during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95857
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 95856, which changed state.
Bug 95856 Summary: [11 Regression] error: definition in block 2 follows the use
since r11-1582-gcf07eea8429c923b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95856
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
int x[4];
void foo(int i)
{
i = (i+1) & 31;
x[0] = (x[0] << i) + i;
x[1] = (x[1] << i) + i;
x[2] = (x[2]
|1
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks||53947
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95867
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's done through POWI internally, I guess we could open the internal function
to also operate on integers...
As for overflow for a multiplication chain of the same operand there shouldn't
be any issue, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, with some pending patch applied and
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
index ca6bedc9cc8..3d5de39383c 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
@@ -3130,7 +3130,7 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|[9 regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95885
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The documentation is correct, the x86 implementation is not. Note the
documentation says "One use of this macro...", so clearly it's documentation
can be improved by explicitely constraining the macro to in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Summary|Regression in 9.
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v4si foo (v4si x)
{
return x << x[0];
}
generates
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movd%xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 95866, which changed state.
Bug 95866 Summary: vectorized shift with scalar argument not correctly costed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95866
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
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=95706
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 95893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|10.1.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|
|11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-25
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95896
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, it doesn't ICE for me but it uses and I'm funneling in
x86_64-linux host includes, but the systems should be reasonably compatible.
Did g:d2adb79eac663874593a28387db593fb4bb2995f possibly fix the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
OK, I have a patch doing BIT_FIELD_REFs.
gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-26
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95899
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The register allocator cannot always recover so it can lead to spilling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|New test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase that also triggers on x86_64 and without graphite:
double foo (double x, int n)
{
double s = 0.;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
s += x;
s += x;
s += x;
}
return s;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly simply a disconnect in the mips expanders for vcond vs vcmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
1001 - 1100 of 48684 matches
Mail list logo
