https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102792
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Here is a valid code, accepted by other compilers, leading to the same ICE:
```
using V = decltype([](auto x) { x.f(); });
class A{
void f() {}
public:
friend constexpr auto V::operator()(auto)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Created attachment 51614 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
>
> The previous file had an extra (older) patch in it.
I should add some stats for this, oh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #44 from Christoph Reiter ---
Fore completeness: The "exceptions not working" problem now also crept into our
v10.3 build with the last rebuild. Maybe some dependency change in the last two
months, but no idea :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794
Bug ID: 102794
Summary: [12 Regression] missing vrp in evrp dealing with casts
and ands
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102663
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I would install the patch for now.
OK, I'll need to regenerate it and re-test it first...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51613|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51613=edit
Current patchset which I am testing
Here is my current patch set which fixes this. It is 4 patches. The first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> Also, if we did have cleaner IL, we could probably tweak the threader to
> elide the call to foo() earlier. That is, without having to resort to help
> from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #43 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #42)
> Can you remove the crtbegin.o too, just to be sure, rebuild libstdc++ and
> upload the DLL at the same URL as before?
Same result after moving away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #42 from Eric Botcazou ---
> After removing the spurious crtend.o and rebuilding libstdc++ following
> those instructions, the new libstdc++-6.dll still crashes the same way.
Can you remove the crtbegin.o too, just to be sure,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102755
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Duncan Simpson from comment #3)
> I *can* build the cross compiler because the override spec files get the
> assembler name right when I use --with-as=. There are
> no problems building the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #41 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #40)
> > Do you want a full rebuild of gcc?
>
> At least a full rebuild of libstdc++-v3:
> rm -rf i686-w64-mingw32/libstdc++-v3
> make all-target-libstdc++-v3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regression] ICE in new |ICE in new test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ispavlick at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #40 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Do you want a full rebuild of gcc?
At least a full rebuild of libstdc++-v3:
rm -rf i686-w64-mingw32/libstdc++-v3
make all-target-libstdc++-v3 -jN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou ---
> We do not have it. Can you (temporarily) remove it and see what happens?
In fact we specifically remove them at packaging time:
# Remove crtbegin.o and crtend.o. We are rebuilding them during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #38 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #37)
> > It comes from the MinGW-w64 CRT.
>
> We do not have it. Can you (temporarily) remove it and see what happens?
After moving away that file, exceptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #37 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It comes from the MinGW-w64 CRT.
We do not have it. Can you (temporarily) remove it and see what happens?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #36 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #34)
> > These are the crtend.o from the installed gcc 10.3 (which works fine):
> >
> > $ for f in `find /mingw32 -name crtend.o` ; do echo $f && nm $f ; done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #35 from Óscar Fuentes ---
Yes, it is a debug build (the libstdc++ dll you got is from that). The same
crash happens with a release build, though.
Note the -Og going after the -O2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou ---
> These are the crtend.o from the installed gcc 10.3 (which works fine):
>
> $ for f in `find /mingw32 -name crtend.o` ; do echo $f && nm $f ; done
> /mingw32/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/crtend.o
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Weird, this looks like a compilation at -O0. Can you post the command line?
-O1 gives the same assembly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The compilation emits this warning:
>
> ../../../gcc-11.2.0/libgcc/config/i386/cygming-crtend.c:59:1: warning:
> constructor priorities from 0 to 100 are reserved for the implementation
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #31 from Óscar Fuentes ---
> Could you replay the compilation of this file? In the top level directory,
> do
> rm i686-w64-mingw32/libgcc/crtend.o
> make all-target-libgcc
> copy the (long) command line, go into the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I have quite a few crtend.o files in the build directory. A quick glance
> indicates that .text.startup is missing:
>
> $ for f in `find ./build-i686-w64-mingw32/ -name crtend.o` ; do echo $f &&
> nm $f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88003
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.kokovic at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97823
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97823
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102760
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Likely triggered with r7-821-gc7986356a1ca8e8e.
>
> From Andrew's comment, it looks like the bug is before that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102793
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is a gimple level missed optimization where the indirect function call
> is not "commonized". There are a few other bugs which are similar to this
> too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-15
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102793
Bug ID: 102793
Summary: AArch64: sequential comparisons with equal conditional
blocks don't use ccmp
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102792
Bug ID: 102792
Summary: Internal compiler error if define lambda::operator()
as friend
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102044
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102039
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102034
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101402
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
commit r12-4453-g79802c5dcc043a515f429bb2bec7573b8537c32a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-15
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #29 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #28)
> OK, I know what's wrong in the libstdc++.dll of GCC 11, now let's try to
> figure out why this is so... Can you run 'nm' on one of the occurrences of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102791
Bug ID: 102791
Summary: Friend declaration of lambda function is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The wrong locus for comment#1 is fixed by:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c
index cfaf9d26bbc..bfb371b82c9 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/check.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/check.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mykola.dolhyi at avid dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dgun at umpire dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi at lisas dot de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kcc at mcst dot ru
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11806
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|10.1.0 |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102788
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r12-1075-g28484d00c45b7bf094a22a4fddf9ffdc7482c7e1
I just think that exposed the latent bug in the vectorizer as far as I can
tell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102788
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed.
...
mask__43.21_62 = vect_cst__60 != vect_cst__61;
_43 = var_12.0_1 != 0;
_3 = (long long unsigned int) _43;
vect_patt_34.22_63 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(mask__43.21_62);
_26 = (unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102790
Bug ID: 102790
Summary: Inactive ifdef block is checked on content validity
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Bug ID: 102789
Summary: [12 regression] libgomp.c++/simd-3.C fails after
r12- for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Summary|Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102788
Bug ID: 102788
Summary: Wrong code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Interesting. Cannot reproduce on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
However, changing the testcase as follows:
program p
integer, parameter :: a(1) = 2
! integer, parameter :: b(2) = reshape([3,4], -[a])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102685
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e819bd95ebeefc1dc469daa1855ce005cb77822
commit r12-4452-g1e819bd95ebeefc1dc469daa1855ce005cb77822
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102786
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be a dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
Bug ID: 102787
Summary: [12 regression] ICE in new test case
gfortran.dg/reshape_shape_2.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, I know what's wrong in the libstdc++.dll of GCC 11, now let's try to figure
out why this is so... Can you run 'nm' on one of the occurrences of crtend.o
in the build tree (there are two copies of it)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102785
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, it could well be a representational problem in the RTL. I didn't try to
debug it at all beyond reduction and noting that cse1 was where the two
compilers diverged in behavior.
I don't personally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102785
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102786
Bug ID: 102786
Summary: PMF constant evaluation bug
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102785
Bug ID: 102785
Summary: [12 Regression] {smul,umul}_highpart changes break
bfin-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102753
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51612=edit
gcc12-pr102753.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c564e813c0626802e5bfb066c094933d5e6a774
commit r12-4448-g2c564e813c0626802e5bfb066c094933d5e6a774
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102768
--- Comment #2 from ashimida ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #1)
> note that this at least
>
> - requires runtime support (to manage the shadow stack),
> - needs a reserved register (x18),
> - affects unwinding (shadow stack must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a few other bugs which very similar to this one. Gcc not implementing
a pragma is one of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102782
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC for simple instructions on building
gmp, mpfr and mpc the simplest, always-correct way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102784
Bug ID: 102784
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl
common' structure, have 'error_mark' in
synthesize_implicit_template_parm, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
Bug ID: 102783
Summary: [powerpc] FPSCR manipulations cannot be relied upon
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102768
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102782
Bug ID: 102782
Summary: Including causes ICE (illegal instruction in
min() and max()) on Haswell or older
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
We have the type
unit-size
and movmisalign pattern is enabled for this.
but the vectorization cost doesn't handle the case of elements=1, which is the
case when mode is TImode.
So I think
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
