https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115217
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note aarch64's TImode is always allocated in starting in even number registers
(starting in GCC 9:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20181002161915.18843-10-richard.hender...@linaro.org/
) .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC and ICC (EDG in GCC compat mode) also rejects the code for the same reason
as GCC. Are you sure this is not a clang issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115216
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58281=edit
testcase
Next time please attach the testcase or place it inline rather than just a link
to godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115210
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14295
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||user202729 at protonmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115210
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target
at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this will fix it:
```
diff --git a/gcc/asan.cc b/gcc/asan.cc
index 9e0f51b1477..c684ca6d366 100644
--- a/gcc/asan.cc
+++ b/gcc/asan.cc
@@ -4276,6 +4276,7 @@ asan_instrument (void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |sanitizer
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|sanitizer |fortran
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115204
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115204
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 99% sure there is a dup of this bug already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114273
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xxs_chy at outlook dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.2|11.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115010
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thorsten Otto from comment #14)
> A bisect between 10.0.0 and 11.4.0 for the 2nd testcase gave me this commit:
>
> commit 512c6ba04102295fccc62a173ee0086ca733c920
> From: Richard Biener
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115081
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> /* The parameter should be a real operand, so that phi node
>created for it at the start of the function has the meaning
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||FIXME
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58274
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58274=edit
Slightly more reduced
Slightly more reduced, foo3 should produce the same as foo4.
Basically Tailr does not handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58273
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58273=edit
Better (reduced testcase)
The tail call happens in the foo2 case while not in foo1. This is due to struct
returns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh the issue is the iterator is a struct which confuses things ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115100
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>This has been true since wide-int branch was merged in back in 2014.
Actually older than that. I had missed understood the diff there. But still not
documented.
ine
|Trunk GCC (GCC 15) Failed |vsext+vadd -> vwadd but
||Trunk GCC (GCC 15) Failed
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115125
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nikolai Ivanenko from comment #1)
> Forgot to mention that the the code commented out in main compiles without
> warnings.
That is just due to inlining differences. Afterwards if you rename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://sigcpp.godbolt.org/ |
|z/jjGT8hK8d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||*-*-mingw
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid,|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115187
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> clang complains:
>
> t.ii:3:7: error: cannot delete expression of type 'T' (aka 'int[2]')
> 3 | delete T{};
> | ^ ~~~
But that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115191
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95958
Bug 95958 depends on bug 102171, which changed state.
Bug 102171 Summary: vget_low_*/vget_high_* intrinsics should become
BIT_FIELD_REF during gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102171
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107800
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luigighiron at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115195
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109241#c5 is a reduced version of
comment #0 here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at rivosinc dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115195
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 114303.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115191
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
: In function 'main':
:8:57: warning: initializer-string for array of 'char' is too long for
C++ [-Wc++-compat]
8 | static const char description[][5] = {[hello] = "hello"};
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is included in -Wc++-compat .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note in c, "abc" is valid for [3] initializer . This is different from c++.
There is a dup of this bug already filed asking to add the warning. I think it
was added but it is not included in either -Wextra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115179
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576#c10 gives an example of how
to use the new feature which was added for GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul_robinson at playstation
dot s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115178
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So for this warning GCC does not keep track of what the possible values can be
done for the computed gotos. GCC thinks all labels which have their address can
be taken are targets for a computed goto as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also will add an internal function which will be used for vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
The builtins I am going to implement to be similar to clang:
__builtin_bitreverse{8,16,32,64,g}
The g one is not part of clang but will be used for _BitInt types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While looking at some code I noticed that it uses clang's __builtin_bitreverse8
builtin and looking at the aarch64 backend, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.0
Summary|[11/12/13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88602
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jean-Michaël Celerier from comment #4)
> Another vote for this. It's used in the KFR DSP library which for this
> reason gets restricted to clang in some configurations...
>
> Compare
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64-linux-gnu with my example I don't see a call via plt here either:
PIC:
```
adrpx0, __dso_handle
add x2, x0, :lo12:__dso_handle
adrpx1, :got:f;ldr x1, [x1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also provide the testcase which you see this with too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14/15 Regression] |[11/12/13 Regression] tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115166
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58249=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58247=edit
Easier to (reduced) understand testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|14.1.0 |
Summary|[13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Matching expression match.pd:2310, gimple-match-3.cc:90
Matching expression match.pd:2310, gimple-match-3.cc:90
Applying pattern match.pd:4890, gimple-match-2.cc:4798
Matching expression match.pd:160,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
Optimizing statement _5 = () _2;
LKUP STMT _5 = nop_expr _2
2>>> STMT _5 = nop_expr _2
Optimizing statement _3 = -_5;
LKUP STMT _3 = negate_expr _5
2>>> STMT _3 = negate_expr _5
Optimizing statement f.b
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-19
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115158
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, _GLIBCXX_HAVE_GETENTROPY maybe should not defined for PRU while
configuring libstdc++ ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Summary|[14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115156
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% sure this if this case matters as the return value of
__builtin_clzl is very much unused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108256
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bic60176 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if my r13-7434-g682bbd364708fe exposed the issue.
And then r14-3432-gddd64a6ec3b38e "fixed" it (on accident).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.1.0, 14.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
1 - 100 of 34693 matches
Mail list logo
