https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109480
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding:
template friend struct RemoteAccessibleBase;
To the RemoteAccessibleBase template struct fixes the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109480
Bug ID: 109480
Summary: g++-12 and g++-11 failed to compile the attached
source file while g++-10 and clang can.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> Hi,
>
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> on 2023/4/11 17:14, guojiufu wrote:
>>> > Thanks for raising this concern.
>>> > The behavior to check about bif on FLOAT128_HW and emit an error message
Hi,
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/4/11 17:14, guojiufu wrote:
>> > Thanks for raising this concern.
>> > The behavior to check about bif on FLOAT128_HW and emit an error message
>> > for
>> > requirements on quad-precision is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108815
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109479
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 54836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54836=edit
testcase
Next time please attach or put inline the testcase instead of just linking to
godbolt. Also you should put
Am Mittwoch, dem 12.04.2023 um 00:32 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Ok, here is another attempt on fixing issues with size expression.
> > Not all are regressions, but it does not make sense to try to split
> > it up.
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> PR108783?
Test case was from it. I don't mind not adding such things to See Also though,
I'm still new to bug wrangling. Sorry if it's wrong!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109479
Bug ID: 109479
Summary: [RISC-V] Build with rv64gc_zve32x_zvl64b should fail
but actually not
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #13 from Huaqi ---
Hello, I didn't take a try with other mingw gcc version, locally I just revert
304c7d44a2212e6fd618587331cea2c266dc10bf commit, then it works for me.
Thanks
Huaqi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #12 from Huaqi ---
Hello, this is the command used to configure gcc
/work/gcc/configure --target=riscv64-unknown-elf --host=i686-w64-mingw32
--prefix=/work/LocalInstall/win32/newlibc/2023.04-eng2/gcc --disable-shared
--di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108815
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5582ad0afb051a76231b2959487f4ef1746df283
commit r13-7142-g5582ad0afb051a76231b2959487f4ef1746df283
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
Serves me right for only checking vector (which worked) and vector
(which didn't) and not bothering to check vector const (which also doesn't
work) and thus overly complicating the bug report.
I got too
Hi,
This patch xfails a float128 comparison test case on powerpc64 that
fails due to a longstanding issue with floating-point compares.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 for more
information.
The patch passed regression test on Power Linux platforms.
Thanks
Gui
On 4/10/23 01:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 06:25:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/6/23 08:21, Eric Botcazou wrote:
So, perhaps just in the return op0; case add further code for
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and sub-word modes which will call nonzero_bits
again for the word
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ok, here is another attempt on fixing issues with size expression.
> Not all are regressions, but it does not make sense to try to split
> it up.
This wording implies this is version 2 or later of the patch, could you
please give a
This is a carry over from PR 108139.
When we have a PHI node which has 2 arguments and one is undefined, we
create an equivalence between the LHS and the non-undefined PHI
argument. THis allows us to perform certain optimizations.
The problem is, when we are evaluating range-on-entry in the
On 4/11/23 17:09, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
I don't want to seperate VSETVL PASS into 2 seperate PASS.
I want make everything cleaner.
Well, two pass vsetvl might actually be cleaner. But as I've noted
before, now is not the time to debate the vsetvl implementation detail.
We've got much
I don't want to seperate VSETVL PASS into 2 seperate PASS.
I want make everything cleaner.
Another example is VSETVL PASS can do the branch prediction:
https://godbolt.org/z/K44r98E5v
In function "f", you can see we put the hoist vsetvl from a more likely block
(i !=cond) outside the loop,
then
Jakub,
for avoidance of doubt, your version is fine.
nathan
On 4/11/23 18:06, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 4/11/23 04:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
When working on the PR109040 fix, I wanted to test it on some
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and tried sparc-solaris on GCC Farm.
My bootstrap
On 4/11/23 04:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
When working on the PR109040 fix, I wanted to test it on some
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and tried sparc-solaris on GCC Farm.
My bootstrap failed in comparison failure on cp/module.o, because
Solaris date doesn't support the -r option and one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109478
Bug ID: 109478
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr104989.C -std=gnu++14 (internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54835=edit
in progress patch
THe fix for PR 108139 disallowed an equivalences with a PHI because it may be a
one way
On 4/11/23 02:55, Richard Biener wrote:
Just to throw in a comment here - I think you should present LCM
with something it can identify as the same for compatible vsetvl and
then it should just work? OTOH if "compatible" is not transitive
that's not possible (but then I can't quickly make
On 4/11/23 14:10, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
These functions are NOPs on the soft-float ABIs. Since we're already
forcing the ISA, let's just force the ABI too.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/xtheadfmv-fmv.c: Force the ilp32d ABI.
---
This one is also in the testing queue.
On 4/11/23 13:03, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
The test case that was added is rv64i-specific, as there's better ways
to generate this code on rv32i (where the long/int cast is a NOP) and on
rv64i_zba (where we have word shifts). This renames the original test
case and adds two more for those
On 4/11/23 04:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch was what I've tried first before the currently committed
PR109386 fix. Still, I think it is the right thing until we have proper
full set of VREL_* relations for NANs (though it would be really nice
if op1_op2_relation could be passed
These functions are NOPs on the soft-float ABIs. Since we're already
forcing the ISA, let's just force the ABI too.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/xtheadfmv-fmv.c: Force the ilp32d ABI.
---
This one is also in the testing queue. OK for trunk?
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
See also PR109469 and PR109410.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54834=edit
wget.i (reduced further, cleaned up, check)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
In DOM3 I see
901970 range_on_entry (Result$16_552) to BB 120
<...>
Equivalence update! : _143 has range : [irange] TokenKind [22, 22] NONZERO
0x16 refining range to :[irange] TokenKind [22, 22]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54833=edit
wget.i (reduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
Bug ID: 109477
Summary: [13 regression] ICE: internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed (error: returns_twice call is
not first in basic block 8) when building busybox
Dear all,
the testcase in the PR by Gerhard exhibited a mis-treatment of
the function decl of the entry master if the function result
had a pointer attribute and the translation unit was compiled
with -ff2c. We actually should not use the peculiar special
treatment for default-real functions in
Hi!
On 2022-12-06T14:47:26+, Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> This patch set consists of the libgm2 makefile, autoconf sources
> necessary to build the libm2pim, libm2iso, libm2min, libm2cor
> and libm2log.
Notice:
> --- /dev/null 2022-08-24 16:22:16.88870 +0100
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #1 from Wilhelm M ---
Inetristingly changing the function to
uint16_t mul(const uint8_t a, const uint16_t b) {
return static_cast((b >> 8) + 1) * a ;
}
produces optimal
mul(unsigned char, unsigned int):
subi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
Bug ID: 109476
Summary: Missing optimization for 8bit/8bit multiplication /
regression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
The test case that was added is rv64i-specific, as there's better ways
to generate this code on rv32i (where the long/int cast is a NOP) and on
rv64i_zba (where we have word shifts). This renames the original test
case and adds two more for those targets.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:47 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok, here is another attempt on fixing issues with size expression.
> Not all are regressions, but it does not make sense to try to split
> it up.
They might be regressions still from pre gimple (3.4 and before),
though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #6 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
Let me rephrase, Im sorry maybe I was too broad. For any specific gcc binary,
> /usr/bin/gcc-8 -Q --help=warnings | grep enabled
Will give me the list of warnings enabled by default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Jorge Pinto Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Ok, here is another attempt on fixing issues with size expression.
Not all are regressions, but it does not make sense to try to split
it up.
Martin
Fix ICEs related to VM types in C [PR106465, PR107557, PR108424,
PR109450]
Size expressions were sometimes lost and not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
A retry build has been detected on builder gccrust-opensusetw-x86_64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/103/builds/975
Build state: worker not available
Revision: (unknown)
Worker: bbo1-1
Build Reason: (unknown)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but then some warnings despite being listed there were not triggered:
https://godbolt.org/z/GGnjcjxKh
You get the trigraph warning if you don't supply any options. -std=c++14 option
enables -trigraphs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #2 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
> No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released
> version of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it by default is
> both Debian and Ubuntu.
Ah so the ones that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>So we can say that these are the only two that are default enabled?
No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released version
of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Bug ID: 109475
Summary: How to check for default compiler warnings in g++
8.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #8 from Pali Rohár ---
So from the discussion, do I understand correctly that this is rather LD linker
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Bug ID: 109474
Summary: chunk_by doesn't work for ranges of proxy references
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote:
> Note that this makes minNum/maxNum (and friends) not associative. Also,
> different languages and different hardware implement fmin/fmax different
> and sometimes in conflict with 754-2008 (e.g. on SSE2 maxsd isn't
> commutative but maxNum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96882
--- Comment #11 from David Crocker ---
As the master branch was updated a year ago according to comment 10, does this
mean that there is now a stable release of gcc that incudes the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #13 from Alex Coplan ---
Clang recognizes the "cxx_defaulted_functions" feature to detect whether "=
default" functions are supported.
It's clear that __has_feature (cxx_defaulted_functions) should evaluate to 1
for -std=c++11 and
On 4/9/23 23:07, Lin Sinan via Gcc-patches wrote:
From: Sinan Lin
there is no need to split an xori/ori with an small constant. take the test
case `int foo(int idx) { return idx|3; }` as an example,
rv64im_zba generates:
ori a0,a0,3
ret
but, rv64im_zba_zbs generates:
On 4/10/23 14:59, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/9/23 23:07, Lin Sinan via Gcc-patches wrote:
From: Sinan Lin
there is no need to split an xori/ori with an small constant. take the test
case `int foo(int idx) { return idx|3; }` as an example,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 98450, which changed state.
Bug 98450 Summary: Inconsistent Wunused-variable warning for std::array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
maic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #30 from maic ---
This bug still exists for our project. To reproduce:
# g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 13.0.1 20230404 (Red Hat 13.0.1-0)
# cat /tmp/2.cpp
const int (const int , const bool ) { return i; }
int main() {
int a;
Hello,
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> In the case we ever implement conforming FP exception support
> either targets would need to be fixed to mask unexpected exceptions
> or we have to refrain from moving instructions where the target
> implementation may rise exceptions
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/4/11 17:14, guojiufu wrote:
> > Thanks for raising this concern.
> > The behavior to check about bif on FLOAT128_HW and emit an error message for
> > requirements on quad-precision is added in gcc12. This is why gcc12 fails to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 15:59, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk perhaps?
Yes, this is only for C++23 so OK for trunk now.
The auto(x) uses mean this won't work with older versions of Clang,
but that's OK. I already introduced that
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 15:58, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk/12?
OK for all, thanks.
(This hasn't been approved by LWG yet, but it should be soon.)
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/std/ranges
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk perhaps?
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/ranges (__cpp_lib_ranges_enumerate): Define
for C++23.
(__detail::__range_with_movable_reference): Likewise.
(enumerate_view): Likewise.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk/12?
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/ranges (lazy_split_view::_OuterIter::_OuterIter):
Propagate _M_trailing_empty in the const-converting constructor
as per LWG 3904.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615
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=99982
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE during GIMPLE pass: |ICE during GIMPLE pass:
Hi Jerry, all,
On 4/11/23 02:43, Jerry D via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 4/10/23 1:49 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
when comparing formal and actual arguments of a procedure, there was no
check of rank for derived types from intrinsic module ISO_C_BINDING.
This could lead to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Peter
gcc version 13.0.1 20230411 (experimental) (GCC)
~/gcc/scratch_build/gcc$ echo -n g:; git -C ../../scratch rev-parse HEAD^
g:b8e32978e3d9e3b88cd4f441edfdebfa395a5c26
(the commit applied on top of this is a maintainer-scripts/ edit)
I don't have a vanilla build of current releases/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
PR108783?
Anyway, will have a look now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109472
Bug ID: 109472
Summary: [13 regression] False unread/unassigned warning for
variable in local package
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/25/23 15:35, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/9/23 14:25, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022, Patrick Palka
A restored build has been detected on builder gccrust-opensusetw-x86_64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/103/builds/934
Build state: build successful
Revision: 6c4fa22d38492d9d80255b6d2e52370bde6e8749
Worker: bb3
Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Michael Meissner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
commit r11-10618-g5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
Author: Michael
A new failure has been detected on builder gccrust-opensusetw-x86_64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/103/builds/933
Build state: failed 'grep unexpected ...' (failure)
Revision: 615ee14c08e5eb2347813005bb3ad14efeddd725
Hi Yanzhang:
Thanks, applied to trunk now, and also congrats for your first patch on GCC!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:00 PM Wang, Yanzhang wrote:
>
> Hi Kito, Juzhe, Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your kindly reviews. I have modified based on the comments and ran
> the testsuite on my local. Could you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109104
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
commit r13-7138-g40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
Author: Yanzhang Wang
Date: Tue
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:39 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > For the following test:
> >
> > svint32_t f(svint32_t v)
> > {
> > return svrev_s32 (svrev_s32 (v));
> > }
> >
> > We generate 2 rev instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #4 from Stefano ---
Created attachment 54829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54829=edit
source code
Let me give more explanation why RISC-V vector need so many modes than AArch64.
The following will use "RVV" as an abbreviation for "RISC-V Vector"
instructions.
There are two key points here:
- RVV has a concept called LMUL - you can understand that as register
grouping, we can group up to 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #3 from Stefano ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> The code seems available in the godbolt link but it uses std::array, not
> std::vector.
I'm sorry. I mean std::array of course. :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
Hi, Joseph,
This is the 2nd ping to the 6th version of the patch -:)
Please let me know if you have any further comments on the patch, and whether
it’s Okay to commit it to trunk?
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, maybe the problem is that the library code manually elides destroying the
elements, precisely because it's a no-op. So we don't actually destroy the
elements, which means the compiler might think
Hi, Jakub,
This is the 2nd ping to the 6th version of the patches -:)
Please let me know if you have any further comments on this patch, and whether
it’s Okay to commit it to trunk?
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
