https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97034
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adamkzyzik at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98604
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98551
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98551
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee697d4bbb7991c99539ba6c20ec76b5d488cffc
commit r10-9241-gee697d4bbb7991c99539ba6c20ec76b5d488cffc
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afe708223f0bfffe688674659f7a71c5130f01d1
commit r10-9240-gafe708223f0bfffe688674659f7a71c5130f01d1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
--- Comment #21 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chinoune from comment #20)
> won't fix.
This is hilarious! Now, I know why you are so confused.
>From your code in comment #2
call system_clock( t1, count_rate_r32 )
c =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97714
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
> It has to be done with care of course, cost modeling is difficult
> (we need to have a good estimate of n and m or need to version
> the whole nest). That said, usually we attempt the reverse transform.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97714
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57450da2fef3a32dc463b85e7b3d67f519b282cb
commit r11-6561-g57450da2fef3a32dc463b85e7b3d67f519b282cb
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98607
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
To be fair, C++ does the same as well. The problem is the inliner (though no
inlining occurs when using immintrin.h)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
As far as I can tell, there are two invocations of lto1: wpa, then ltrans.
The analyzer is run in the first invocation.
The analyzer updates the gimple stmt uids; if I disable this updating the crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98606
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98606
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98610
Bug ID: 98610
Summary: syscall.TestUnshareUidGidMapping sporadically fails on
powerpc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
Bug ID: 98609
Summary: sanitizer diagnoses VLAs with length zero although
zero-length arrays are a GNU extension
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98608
Bug ID: 98608
Summary: missing sanitizer detection for arrays with invalid
length defind using typeof
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66366
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #11)
> The error vanishes if the typebound procedure is removed from the type
> declaration and the corresponding typebound call.
Or renaming the local instance:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66366
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=98607
Bug ID: 98607
Summary: GDC merging computations but rounding mode has changed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The idea is to print the cast indicating the MEM_REF type only when the size of
the accessed type is different from the size of the element type of the
underlying array or pointer. Structural equivalence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98606
Bug ID: 98606
Summary: [10 regression] obj-c++.dg/template-4.mm fails
erratically
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:43:20PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
>
> --- Comment #17 from Chinoune ---
> Once I reported a bug to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
Bug ID: 98605
Summary: clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:43:20PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com
wrote:
>
> I concluded that is a waste of time arguing with him.
>
Did you run the test program from my last comment?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58243
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Confirmed; identical code w./wo. -fno-tree-sra for cris-elf too.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
--- Comment #17 from Chinoune ---
Once I reported a bug to gcc/gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91337 but someone argued that it
was my fault to use "-Ofast" so I rewrite the reproducer in C and reported
again under another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to José Rui Faustino de Sousa from comment #7)
> Hi all!
>
> Still ICEs with 9/10/11 using -ftrapv -fcheck=bounds
>
> Best regards,
> José Rui
Yes, indeed. This with those compile options
module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58243
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47059
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47059
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98600
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98604
Bug ID: 98604
Summary: Passing constexpr by const reference causes excessive
memory usage during compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:745d04e796c1a7ebcea0185d0742d58b0c0030ab
commit r11-6557-g745d04e796c1a7ebcea0185d0742d58b0c0030ab
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jan 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #15 from Chinoune ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98473
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Borislav Stanimirov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
>
> > To meet the requirements of the standard we would need to insert them at the
> > end and then use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98551
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb1f0b50abbfa01e0ed720a5225a11aa7af32a89
commit r11-6554-gbb1f0b50abbfa01e0ed720a5225a11aa7af32a89
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98a1fb705ead9258642f2dec0431f11508a9b13c
commit r11-6553-g98a1fb705ead9258642f2dec0431f11508a9b13c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98556
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> If we are emitting for nested functions
> pushq %r10
> 1:call__fentry__
> popq%r10
> (is it ok to misalign the stack for __fentry__?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 11 so far. Please open a new GCC bug for mcount stack
alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76be18f442948d1a4bc49a7d670b07097f9e5983
commit r11-6552-g76be18f442948d1a4bc49a7d670b07097f9e5983
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jan 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 8, 2021 3:07:48 PM GMT+01:00, "mar...@mpa-garching.mpg.de"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
>
>--- Comment #22 from Martin Reinecke ---
>Brilliant, thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #22 from Martin Reinecke ---
Brilliant, thank you very much for tracking this one down!
My FFT library now works correctly again with all optimizations enabled, which
is a great relief. The scipy maintainers will be happy that they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98557
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So fixed now? clang_delta bugs should be tracked elsewhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96504
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Are you going to fix co-ret-17-void-ret-coro.C too?
should be done with
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-January/340327.html
(as far as I am aware,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98603
Bug ID: 98603
Summary: aarch64: ICE in extract_insn (ira) on asm goto with
bad constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98602
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49913|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98602
Bug ID: 98602
Summary: Failure to optimise vector “x > -100 ? x : -100” to
MAX_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdcde1504502719504a7a63ab10059e171694dc2
commit r11-6549-gbdcde1504502719504a7a63ab10059e171694dc2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Bug ID: 98601
Summary: aarch64: ICE in rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1, at
rtlanal.c:467
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b885264a48dcd71b7aeb26c0abeb91246724897
commit r11-6548-g1b885264a48dcd71b7aeb26c0abeb91246724897
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jan 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96504
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98591
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96504
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8214d5381c44f386b0f2c50bb9d48261c9df5a8
commit r10-9238-gf8214d5381c44f386b0f2c50bb9d48261c9df5a8
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
> err
>
> /* { dg-do run } */
>
> double a[2], b[2], c[2], d[2];
>
> void __attribute__((noipa))
> foo()
> {
> double a0 = a[0];
> double a1 = a[1];
> double b0 = b[0];
> double b1 = b[1];
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> /* { dg-do run } */
>
> double a[4], b[2];
>
> void __attribute__((noipa))
> foo ()
> {
> double a0 = a[0];
> double a1 = a[1];
> double a2 = a[2];
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
/* { dg-do run } */
double a[4], b[2];
void __attribute__((noipa))
foo ()
{
double a0 = a[0];
double a1 = a[1];
double a2 = a[2];
double a3 = a[3];
b[0] = a1 - a3;
b[1] = a0 + a2;
}
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
Didn't go deep into the case.
For simple cases taken as examples, it's possible to interchange the two loops
thus enables loop invariant code motion. Though loop interchange may fail
because of complicated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98600
Bug ID: 98600
Summary: Pointer-to-member deduced type not accepted as
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jamborm at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 97469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f1cb70d7ca6a8da7f6bc7f43fb5e758c0ce88b5
commit r11-6547-g8f1cb70d7ca6a8da7f6bc7f43fb5e758c0ce88b5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586
--- Comment #2 from Keith Marshall ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> I looked at calling diagnostic_initialize.
>
> Unfortunately, libgccjit supports being linked into multithreaded processes,
> and it guards all of the regular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
Bug ID: 98599
Summary: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range
with -Os -flto -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the suggestions, I could reproduce it now.
Input to isel is:
_1 = a_2(D) == b_3(D);
c_4 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_1, { -1, -1, -1, -1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
return c_4;
For the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not really a penalization, the -std= is (supposed to be) added only
during bootstraps for stage1, so if one builds a cross-compiler or
non-bootstrapped compiler, it isn't added and nobody is penalized,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm here with Richard, by using -std=c++11 for stage1 we get (at least to
> some extent) verification that we aren't relying on GNU extensions and can
> use other host compilers. Of course, further stages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21c1a30fc73105af50c5e717cb99dc3becabf8fa
commit r11-6539-g21c1a30fc73105af50c5e717cb99dc3becabf8fa
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c231fca5de8e455b263495b20a416a5e47d1029a
commit r11-6538-gc231fca5de8e455b263495b20a416a5e47d1029a
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But we do not require a GNU C++11 host compiler but a C++11 host compiler so
> at least for stage1 (as the description depicts) -std=c++11 is what we want
> (to fend off GNU dialect usage).
IMO that's ill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu
> ---
> Loop distribution can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
[...]
> Thanks for testing! Hmm, that execute failure is surprising. I wonder just
> how much we're diverging from the output of printf here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Topi Miettinen from comment #8)
> I'm unfortunately ignorant to GCC internals and usage of %r10, but otherwise
> the patch looks good to me.
>
> For -mcmodel=large -fPIC, the call sequence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu ---
Loop distribution can only handle very simple case. If the inner loop has
complicated control flow and other memory accesses with loop-carried
dependence, it would be hard to handle it. For example,
int foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
--- Comment #8 from Topi Miettinen ---
I'm unfortunately ignorant to GCC internals and usage of %r10, but otherwise
the patch looks good to me.
For -mcmodel=large -fPIC, the call sequence probably needs to be similar to how
other extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|tree-ssa|11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98593
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Why on earth are you calling gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p!? From
a quick look you likely want TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (access_type) !=
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (arg_type)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
