https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Otherwise it LGTM, so please post it this week, I'd really like to see it in
GCC 10.
On January 3, 2020 2:04:20 AM GMT+01:00, Gary Oblock
wrote:
>One of the engineers here at Marvel was experimenting, at the user
>level, with GCC in a failed attempt
>to get loop blocking to do loop blocking. Here's basically his
>question.
>
> Exactly how does loop blocking work in GCC?
>
>I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Oh, and there is another case I'm worried about. While match.pd has the
> /* X == C (or X & Z == Y | C) is impossible if ~nonzero(X) & C != 0. */
> (for cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119
--- Comment #1 from Peakulorain ---
Here is my patch to fix this program.
diff -Nurp a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md 2019-12-20 03:16:50.706754343 +0800
+++
One of the engineers here at Marvel was experimenting, at the user level, with
GCC in a failed attempt
to get loop blocking to do loop blocking. Here's basically his question.
Exactly how does loop blocking work in GCC?
I know this must involve the polyhedral optimization code so an
Hi,
This patch fixes some unsafe usage of asynchronous operations in a
couple of OpenACC tests. I have extracted it from the og9 version of
the patch posted here concerning "ephemeral" asynchronous host-to-device
copies:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg01482.html
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55820
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Czarnota ---
(In reply to Dominik Czarnota from comment #2)
> Six years later this is still unconfirmed :(.
Seven*. Oh those off by ones.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Committed as Rev. 279835 after building an regtesting the attached patch.
+UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/implied_shape_5.f90 -O0 compilation failed to
produce executable
+UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/implied_shape_5.f90 -O1 compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 23:58:35 2020
New Revision: 279849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279849=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/68020
* gfortran.dg/impled_shape_5.f90: Use dg-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55820
Dominik Czarnota changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominik.b.czarnota+bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93139
Bug ID: 93139
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/implied_shape_5.f90 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
This patch tweaks the default implementation of diagnostic_path
printing (-fdiagnostics-path-format=inline-events) to be less verbose
for various common cases.
Consider this synthetic diagnostic from the test plugin:
test.c: In function 'test':
test.c:29:5: error: passing NULL as argument 1 to
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to dmalcolm/analyzer on the GCC git mirror.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/analyzer/analyzer-verbosity-0.c: Update expected
output to remove source code from diagnostic locus, made redundant
by path.
Hi Tobias,
Build on x86-64-gnu-linux. OK for the trunk?
Looks good.
Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes an ICE where an array constructor
containing an empty array constructor with a type didn't
get the type from the inner constructor.
The solution is to stash the type away in yet another variable
and only use it if the constructor turns out to be empty, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not really a bug - C++20 isn't final yet, and we don't claim full support for
the current draft (not even close).
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:07 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:57:01PM -0500, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> > +#if defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_SOURCE_LOCATION)
> > +# define __cpp_lib_source_location 201907L
> > +#elif defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_LINE) &&
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93120
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also this is not a valid bug report. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs clearly says we
need you to provide the actual code, not a URL.
Glen Fernandes is already working on a patch, so I decided to finish
off my changes and throw them up on the Patch List so that Glen can
access the tests parts that I had written (they are not incredibly
extensive but do pass).
For a small implementation description: the code I use does the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Alternatively, we should generate the patterns we have by name, not indirectly
like this.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:57:01PM -0500, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> +#if defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_SOURCE_LOCATION)
> +# define __cpp_lib_source_location 201907L
> +#elif defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_LINE) &&
> defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_COLUMN)
> +# define __cpp_lib_is_constant_evaluated
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 02:00, Jerry wrote:
>
> In the following git log entry, I made a typo on the PR number in the
> libgfortran ChangeLog file. I noticed this right after the git commit,
> while editing the git log.
>
> So I quit the edit without saving and git reported that the commit was
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #4 from JeanHeyd Meneide ---
I changed the library test cases, but maybe there needs to be something that
helps the library developers tag a constant evaluation function as something
that should be ran later / deferred. I don't have
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:28 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> Do nothing - compiling with Clang won't define std::source_location at
> all.
You got it! Patch re-done after discussion here
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093) and recommended
no-Clang change.
2020-01-02 JeanHeyd
This patch to the Go frontend and libgo changes the compiler to only
generate hash functions for types used as map keys.
Right now we generate hash functions for all types, just in case they
are used as map keys. That's a lot of wasted effort and binary size
for types which will never be used as
This patch to the Go frontend splits the writing of equal and hash
functions for types, rather than doing them in a single operation.
This is almost entirely a pure refactoring in preparation for
generating hash functions only for types that are map keys. The only
change in generated code is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and there is another case I'm worried about. While match.pd has the
/* X == C (or X & Z == Y | C) is impossible if ~nonzero(X) & C != 0. */
(for cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(cmp:c
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With this version of gcc10 (svn rev 279832):
gcc version 10.0.0 20200102 (experimental) (GCC)
This source does not compile:
-- x.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 47581 [details]
> gcc10-pr93122.patch
>
> Untested fix. With additional -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables, it doesn't
> ICE, but just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
>
> Formatting, s/(/ (/g
>
> >}
> >(if (wi::eq(mask & cst1,mask & cst2))
>
> Ditto, also add space before ,
>
> > (cmp (bit_and @0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> so something like:
> (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
> cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (bitop
>(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask1) INTEGER_CST@CST1)
>
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With this version of gcc10 (svn rev 279832):
gcc version 10.0.0 20200102 (experimental) (GCC)
this source gives an ICE when compiled with -O:
-- x.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note the generic version of this is:
> ((A & N) == CST1) & ((A & M) == CST2)
>
> if (N) == (N), then
>(A&(N|M)) == (CST1|CST2)
> else
> false
And now for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the generic version of this is:
((A & N) == CST1) & ((A & M) == CST2)
if (N) == (N), then
(A&(N|M)) == (CST1|CST2)
else
false
Hi Tobias,
> implied-shape: Used with PARAMETER; takes the shape of the RHS and (F2018,
> R824) "implied-shape-spec is assumed-implied-spec,
> assumed-implied-spec-list"
>
> When matching an element in an array spec of this type, i.e. (R821)
> "assumed-implied-spec is [lower-bound: ] *", the
Hi,
While working an optimization, the optimization would produce wrong
code but I noticed there was no testcase for that case at all.
Committed as obvious.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
ChangeLog:
* gcc.c-torture/execute/bitfld-8.c: New testcase.
* gcc.c-torture/execute/bitfld-9.c: New testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65428
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
On 12/27/19 11:00 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jason Merrill writes:
On 12/18/19 1:24 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The SVE port needs to maintain a different type identity for
GNU vectors and "SVE vectors" even during LTO, since the types
use different ABIs. The easiest way of doing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #2 from Joel Holdsworth ---
Are you saying that if the GIMPLE were defined for the intrinsics, then the
optimizer would eliminate them automatically? Or is there more to it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
Add some more checks for invalid use for the RHS in proc-pointer
assignments and for ASSOCIATE targets (which uses the latter if the
previous match failed).
Build on x86-64-gnu-linux. OK for the trunk?
Tobias
PR fortran/92994
* primary.c (gfc_match_rvalue): Add some flavor checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 17:36:50 2020
New Revision: 279841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279841=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/90677
* cp-objcp-common.c (identifier_global_tag): Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 2 17:29:59 2020
New Revision: 279840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279840=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/90677
* cp-objcp-common.c (identifier_global_tag): Return
Hi Kyrill,
On 20/12/2019 15:30, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On 12/12/19 5:30 PM, Dennis Zhang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 22/11/2019 14:33, Dennis Zhang wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > This patch is part of a series adding support for Armv8.6-A features.
>> > It enables options including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93110
--- Comment #3 from Khem Raj ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 47579 [details]
> gcc10-pr93110.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Thanks, I tried it out and it fixes the syslinux and grub failures on x86_64
that I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93030
--- Comment #1 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the report -- there's a fix for this on the og9 branch, but I'm not
sure if I've posted that upstream (the GCN worker-partitioning patches were
separated out from the deep-copy patches,
> v2 Changes:
> 1. Enable proportion orig_sum to the new nodes for self recursive node:
>new_sum = (orig_sum + new_sum) \
>* self_recursive_probability * (1 / param_ipa_cp_max_recursive_depth).
> 2. Add value range for param_ipa_cp_max_recursive_depth.
>
> The performance of exchange2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #6 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Apologies for breakage. This part of the patch was originally from the og9
patch supporting Fortran polymorphic class pointers posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00752.html.
On 1/1/20 4:31 AM, The Other wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a Rust frontend for GCC. Rust has some
language-level conditional compilation features based on the presence or
lack of features in the target architecture (e.g. SSE, AVX, a static C
runtime) as well as the target CPU architecture
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91579
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi all,
This patch is to add myself to the Write After Approval section in
MAINTAINERS.
Committed with r279837.
Cheers
Dennis
ChangeLog:
2019-01-02 Dennis Zhang
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 10:52:38AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 12/31/19 6:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > My PR90677 fix actually made building older GCCs with newer ones worse.
> > The problem is that identifier_global_value used earlier returned either the
> > type decl on success or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
The problem here is that we produce ipa-cp clone to devirtualize v::av which
also lead to devirtualization of m::av, but we miss this optimization. After
inlining we remove m::av and while producing the ipa-cp
On 12/31/19 6:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
My PR90677 fix actually made building older GCCs with newer ones worse.
The problem is that identifier_global_value used earlier returned either the
type decl on success or NULL_TREE on failure and the caller in that case
just defers handling it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
implied-shape: Used with PARAMETER; takes the shape of the RHS and
(F2018, R824) "implied-shape-spec is assumed-implied-spec,
assumed-implied-spec-list"
When matching an element in an array spec of this type, i.e. (R821)
"assumed-implied-spec is [lower-bound: ] *", the matcher always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136
Bug ID: 93136
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vmx/ops.c and several other
test break after r279772
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jan 2 15:40:51 2020
New Revision: 279835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279835=gcc=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR68020 – Fix implied-shape handling for rank > 2
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 15:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 03:41:30PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > The new test fails on aarch64:
> > g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error)
> > g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Bug ID: 93135
Summary: g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C fails on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 03:41:30PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> The new test fails on aarch64:
> g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error)
> g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
> g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist118.C -std=c++17 (internal
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 21:28, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In r268428 I changed reshape_init_r in such a way that when it sees
> a nested { } in a CONSTRUCTOR with missing braces, it just returns
> the initializer:
> + else if (COMPOUND_LITERAL_P (stripped_init)
> ...
> + ++d->cur;
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Bug ID: 93134
Summary: [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault in ISL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92994
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> @Richi:
>
> About the param_max_fields_for_field_sensitive:
> Do I understand it correctly that the param is used in IPA PTA for global
> variables? If so, we can't easily use Optimization keyword as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93133
Bug ID: 93133
Summary: __builtin_isgreater emits trapping compare instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
On 1/2/20 11:49 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 02/01/2020 02:00, Jerry wrote:
In the following git log entry, I made a typo on the PR number in the
libgfortran ChangeLog file. I noticed this right after the git commit,
while editing the git log.
...
If you've pushed the branch to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47581=edit
gcc10-pr93122.patch
Untested fix. With additional -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables, it doesn't ICE,
but just emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So ((a&8) != 0 ) | ((a&2) != 0 ) is already handled by the generic "(x != 0 | y
!= 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) != 0".
Anyways this is for tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> We are still in stage3, why not do it now?
> I don't see the point in handling &/== and |/!= in the same simplification
> when you do something completely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
Hi.
The param is changed here:
/* Restrict the amount of work combine does at -Og while retaining
most of its useful transforms. */
if (opts->x_optimize_debug)
SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (opts, opts_set, param_max_combine_insns, 2);
and so that it should be per-function. The only usage
Hi.
Again, the param is set based on optimize_size:
if (opts->x_optimize_size)
/* We want to crossjump as much as possible. */
SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (opts, opts_set, param_min_crossjump_insns, 1);
So that, the param should be per-function. The only usage is in cfgcleanup
that is done
Hi.
The flag is set based on optimization option:
gcc/common/config/i386/i386-common.c:{ OPT_LEVELS_2_PLUS, OPT_free, NULL, 1
},
and so that it should be also per-function. The only usage of the flag is
in gate of a RTL pass, so that it will use on function selection.
Patch can bootstrap
On 02/01/2020 02:58, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2019, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" wrote:
>
>> Right, (and wrong). You have to understand how the release branches and
>> tags are represented in CVS to understand why the SVN conversion is done
>> this way.
>
> I'm curious and ignorant,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93132
Bug ID: 93132
Summary: bogus `attribute((access))' warning when size-index is
specified
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Something like:
(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(bitop:c
(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask1) INTEGER_CST@CST1)
(cmp (bit_and @0 INTEGER_CST@mask2) INTEGER_CST@CST2))
On 02/01/2020 02:00, Jerry wrote:
> In the following git log entry, I made a typo on the PR number in the
> libgfortran ChangeLog file. I noticed this right after the git commit,
> while editing the git log.
>
> So I quit the edit without saving and git reported that the commit was
> aborted.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
Bug ID: 93131
Summary: ((a&8) == 8) && ((a&2) == 2) is not optimized to
(a&(8|2)) == *
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
On 27/12/19 22:27 -0500, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 2:33 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
This will be ABI incompatible between GCC and Clang, that doesn't look like
a good idea to me. I thought the plan is to use what you have in the
_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_SOURCE_LOCATION case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of localalias is thunk that
is not recursive.
> thing we can do is to write a simple case to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93118
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 47578 [details]
> gcc10-pr93118.patch
Thanks, I did not expect this to be fixed for GCC 10 really :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93130
Bug ID: 93130
Summary: PCC simple memset not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
