https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So if we agree to a sane way to cost branchy code on the scalar side then it
should be possible to compare the scalar cost of the not if-converted inner
loop body against the full partially vectorized and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-24
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
Bug ID: 102033
Summary: template function signature incorrectly drops
top-level cv-qualifiers causing template
specialization failing to match
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> It's just not my week... A pair of silly typos.
Don't worry, it's so easy to make a typo :P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|11.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b0c38012093078549811ae1ca0215d1047a2be2
commit r10-10061-g3b0c38012093078549811ae1ca0215d1047a2be2
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed, one way of fixing this is to have a "lower" gimple where signed
> integer overflow does not matter and then we can reassociate all we want.
> There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for the RTL level PLUS for SImode has no knowledge of signed vs unsigned,
it is just an add and will always wrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> True. The user could have written the following though:
>
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> return (unsigned)a + b + c;
> }
This code is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #16)
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> if (b < 0)
> return a + b + c;
> else
> return a + c + b;
> }
>
> The generated code with -O3 has 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niva at niisi dot msk.ru
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
Bug ID: 102032
Summary: missed optimization on 2 equivalent expressions when
-fwrapv is not used
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
>
> --- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> The issue is that the source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The issue is that the source code assuming -fno-wrapv may be more complex, thus
giving slower generated code. Here's an example, which consists in adding 3
signed integers, for which the user knows that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-11-18 22:32:30 |2021-8-24
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e527b92b183de8c887213ccf6b024ddb4e363865
commit r11-8899-ge527b92b183de8c887213ccf6b024ddb4e363865
Author: Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0adc557a26963b9ad0e07829872c968e67c5ffc
commit r11-8898-gd0adc557a26963b9ad0e07829872c968e67c5ffc
Author: Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0deabebedd16c9519bfb1dfbff303c2d9bd701ee
commit r12-3106-g0deabebedd16c9519bfb1dfbff303c2d9bd701ee
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34835
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #12 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
> I don't see that,
This is thanks for javascript programmers. View is different with/without
javascript:
resolvedas
FIXED
INVALID
WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bc33f0318152235ce10220f0d1a2e0c87bde9f1
commit r11-8897-g5bc33f0318152235ce10220f0d1a2e0c87bde9f1
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Petr Ovtchenkov from comment #10)
> This is not for you ;)
> But somebody set field "resolved as" to "FIXED". This is not the case.
I don't see that, it still says UNCONFIRMED for me and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102025
--- Comment #2 from Harun BOZACI ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So it looks like COMMON_LVB_REVERSE_VIDEO is defined sometimes but not in
> all versions of the header files.
Should I create a manual patch for this symbolic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #10 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
This is not for you ;)
But somebody set field "resolved as" to "FIXED". This is not the case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #4 from HaoChen Gui ---
Codes in rs6000-cpus.def,
#define ISA_2_7_MASKS_SERVER(ISA_2_6_MASKS_SERVER \
| OPTION_MASK_P8_VECTOR\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #8 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
Why this marked as "FIXED"? The problem still present. No changes have been
made.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Bug ID: 102031
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in simplify_truncation, at
simplify-rtx.c:620 since
r12-3074-g7e5f9ead16d7514b3baa0254084de94f0bfcd216
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
>
> --- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> Well, you could change the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100061
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tobias S. Josefowitz from comment #10)
> Is the 10.4 milestone really applicable here, or might that in practice be
> something that would cause this bug to go somewhat unnoticed?
The 10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
201 - 250 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
