https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110807
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think _M_offset can ever be out of range, it's always set by the
library code.
Doesn't the warning come from this line, which doesn't use _M_offset anyway?
_Bit_type* __q =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112359
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112359
>
> --- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
> Would something like
>
> + bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110807
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112359
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
Would something like
+ bool allow_cond_op = flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+&& !gimple_bb (phi)->loop_father->dont_vectorize;
in convert_scalar_cond_reduction be sufficient or are the more conditions to
check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112404
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Two issues, a simple omission where the ICE occurs and then failure to compute
alignment info for SLP of .MASK_LOAD because SLP_INSTANCE_LOADS doesn't
contain them. Oops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112350
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112350=1
it's shown here that the warning is triggered by setting -O3 optimization level
to 3.
I don't know if such behavior is expected i.e. triggering warning is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111760
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c42741ad95af3a1e3ac07350da4c3a94865ed63
commit r14-5151-g0c42741ad95af3a1e3ac07350da4c3a94865ed63
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112406
Bug ID: 112406
Summary: [14 Regression] Several SPECCPU 2017 benchmarks fail
with internal compiler error: in expand_insn, at
optabs.cc:8305
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112404
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112405
Bug ID: 112405
Summary: GCN: "gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-20.c:22:1: error:
conversion of register to a different size in
'view_convert_expr'"
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112351
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah yes, that's a good point. Patrick's improvement affects this initialization.
It's not done for all targets though, as not all targets have linker support
for the init_priority attribute (notably,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112404
Bug ID: 112404
Summary: [14 Regression] 521.wrf_r fails to build with internal
compiler error: in get_vectype_for_scalar_type, at
tree-vect-stmts.cc:13311
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #29 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #28)
> I tried to look up the requirements of __riscv_vle8_v_u8m2 in the vector
> intrinsic specs but besides listing all those intrinsics the spec doesn't
> contain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17df6ddcf11aef6d200305d35641a7deb2f430e1
commit r14-5148-g17df6ddcf11aef6d200305d35641a7deb2f430e1
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112393
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112393
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f463ef79ddb403570461343ebda0c1aeac85d5bb
commit r14-5147-gf463ef79ddb403570461343ebda0c1aeac85d5bb
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
I tried to look up the requirements of __riscv_vle8_v_u8m2 in the vector
intrinsic specs but besides listing all those intrinsics the spec doesn't
contain _any_ documentation? The 2nd arg is named 'vl'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> I think that should be enough to implement the new warning for C++.
Certainly not. Apart from the fact that there's a lot more needed than just
making the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112361
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112361
>
> --- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
> So "before" we created
>
> vect__3.12_55 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112351
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The question is also how much of explicit thread safety is needed when the init
is now happening inside libstdc++ (thus from _init which should be already
ensured to execute exactly once)? Is that (_init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56502|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112361
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
So "before" we created
vect__3.12_55 = MEM [(float *)vectp_a.10_53];
vect__ifc__43.13_57 = VEC_COND_EXPR ;
// _ifc__43 = _24 ? _3 : 0.0;
stmp__44.14_58 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
stmp__44.14_59 = r3_29 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112367
--- Comment #7 from Paul Zimmermann ---
thank you all and sorry for the noise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112369
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d803438e0c4016aff720fad418377c5b13567063
commit r14-5145-gd803438e0c4016aff720fad418377c5b13567063
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112402
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So the question is whether we should do more if-conversion on GIMPLE then (or
axe path splitting or move it to RTL)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64, x86_64-*-*
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112370
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Grund ---
Created attachment 56513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56513=edit
INVALID reduced example (after running cvise on the former example)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112370
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Grund ---
FWIW: I tried to run cvise on this however it created an invalid example where
indeed a non-heap pointer would be freed. I'll attach it anyway for reference
as it took hours to run the reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112382
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109696
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r14-458-g2b8a27634f5d28e3e7c4a08bf065f2daada7aed2 fixed it.
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
