https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112518
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c24011b2ba0f268e74b72519fc8119c2c99d92b
commit r14-5752-g8c24011b2ba0f268e74b72519fc8119c2c99d92b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
In particular the final jump is miscalculated somehow, possibly path-ranger
mishandles the situation. For the loop header we thread through we
first clear dependent ranges (good) but then do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is by design, CMOV should not be used instead of well predicted jumps.
FYI, CMOV is quite problematic on x86, there are several PRs where conversion
to CMOV resulted in 2x slower execution. Please see
ersion 14.0.0 20231122 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Digging a bit further:
if_info.max_seq_cost is calculated via targetm.max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost, where
without params set we return:
return BRANCH_COST (true, predictable_p) * COSTS_N_INSNS (2);
with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
>
> > Someone will have to debug ifcvt.cc to see why it fails on x86_64 but works
> > on aarch64. Note there are some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112657
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Someone will have to debug ifcvt.cc to see why it fails on x86_64 but works
> on aarch64. Note there are some new changes to ifcvt.cc in review which
> might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
>> Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
>> postings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643
--- Comment #23 from Haochen Jiang ---
I have root caused the issue and also discovered some other minor problems
unrelated to this PR but hard to discover.
I will write a patch to fix all of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112667
Bug ID: 112667
Summary: [OpenMP] C++: Handle static local variable in target
regions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112666
Bug ID: 112666
Summary: Missed optimization: Value initialization
zero-initializes members with user-defined constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110879
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111971
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
