https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, that's very helpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note improvements to evrp does change the IR for -O2 for the C++ front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801
--- Comment #9 from Jan Dubiec ---
I think I have found why the static assertion fails as mentioned in my previous
comment. Surprisingly, for H8/300H, H8/S and H8/SX in normal mode 32-bit
integers and floats are aligned on 4-byte boundaries.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107884
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The patch does not work as you cannot pack bit options like this.
There needs to be some better way of doing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107885
Bug ID: 107885
Summary: H8/300: libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc fix
shift-count-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107884
Bug ID: 107884
Summary: H8/300: cp-demangle.c fix warning related demangle.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #22 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #21)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #19)
> > > Also note that 'vfnmadd231pd 32(%rdx,%rax), %ymm3, %ymm0' would be
> > > 'unlaminated' (turned to 2 uops before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uaa at mx5 dot nisiq.net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107883
Bug ID: 107883
Summary: c++17/memory_resource.cc build error for H8/300 target
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107819
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #11)
> Update: Steve Lionel thinks that no temporary is necessary, and testcase
> z1.f90
> is non-conforming:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107819
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Update: Steve Lionel thinks that no temporary is necessary, and testcase z1.f90
is non-conforming:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53970|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53970=edit
patch which handles some parts of the xor in tree-ssa-reassoc.cc
This is the patch which I was talking about which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #19)
> > Also note that 'vfnmadd231pd 32(%rdx,%rax), %ymm3, %ymm0' would be
> > 'unlaminated' (turned to 2 uops before renaming), so selecting independent
> > IVs for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107882
Bug ID: 107882
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_last_bit_offset, at
analyzer/store.h:255
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98966
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98966
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=97832
--- Comment #20 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #16)
> > On unrelated note, why loop overhead uses so many instructions?
> > Assuming that I am as misguided as gcc about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #19 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #18)
> The apparent 'bias' is introduced by instruction scheduling: haifa-sched
> lifts a +64 increment over memory accesses, transforming +0 and +32
> displacements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Bug ID: 107881
Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Bug ID: 107880
Summary: bool tautology missed optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
Bug 91882 depends on bug 103356, which changed state.
Bug 103356 Summary: bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9378e3cc390f9bcc310ce206c6773a817aff2ca
commit r13-4311-gf9378e3cc390f9bcc310ce206c6773a817aff2ca
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note comment #1 is not done after the patch for PR103356 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103356
--- Comment #6 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878
--- Comment #2 from Jan Dubiec ---
One more thing – the documentation on the webpage states that -mn "must be used
either with -mh or -ms". It is true for old compilers (e.g. for gcc 4.7 which I
still use) but does not seem to be true for new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101706
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
r13-1779-g375668e0508fbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for:
bool f(bool a, bool b)
{
b = !b;
return a!=b;
}
We do the correct thing since r13-1779-g375668e0508fbe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Adrian Perl from comment #7)
Again, thanks for working on this.
> Bootstrapping was successfull and the tests are currently running. Some of
> the tests have failed, but they don't seem to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
--- Comment #7 from Adrian Perl ---
Bootstrapping was successfull and the tests are currently running. Some of the
tests have failed, but they don't seem to be related to coroutines. Should I
test twice, with and without the patch, in order to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101733
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |target
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
Kyle Schwarz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeranoe at gmail dot com
--- Comment
/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221126 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107878
Bug ID: 107878
Summary: Incomplete documentation for H8/300
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe you could legally do:
using difference_type = iterator_t>;
but maybe just don't do that. If things break when you do dumb things, don't do
those things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No. They are only allowed to be implementation-defined types, not
program-defined types.
I can add the casts to make this work, but I don't think it's a real problem
that can occur in valid programs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107877
Bug ID: 107877
Summary: segfault in libgccjit when using asse
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
This is just an example. So, are users not allowed to define integer-like class
types?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876
Bug ID: 107876
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in verify_dominators, at
dominance.cc:1184 (error: dominator of 4 should be 14,
not 16)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
65 matches
Mail list logo
