[Bug tree-optimization/113718] New: std::bit_cast making the compiler generate unnecessary code.

2024-02-02 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113718 Bug ID: 113718 Summary: std::bit_cast making the compiler generate unnecessary code. Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/110906] New: __attribute__((optimize("no-math-errno"))) has no effect.

2023-08-04 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110906 Bug ID: 110906 Summary: __attribute__((optimize("no-math-errno"))) has no effect. Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/107564] New: Fail to recognize overflow check for addition of __uint128_t operands

2022-11-07 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107564 Bug ID: 107564 Summary: Fail to recognize overflow check for addition of __uint128_t operands Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/104539] Failed to inline a very simple template function when it's explicit instantiated.

2022-02-14 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539 --- Comment #1 from Cassio Neri --- Sorry, the last snippet above should be template inline int f() { return 0; }

[Bug tree-optimization/104539] New: Failed to inline a very simple template function when it's explicit instantiated.

2022-02-14 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539 Bug ID: 104539 Summary: Failed to inline a very simple template function when it's explicit instantiated. Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/104444] New: Missing constant folding in shift expression.

2022-02-08 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Bug ID: 10 Summary: Missing constant folding in shift expression. Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/101436] Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array bounds"

2021-07-13 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436 --- Comment #3 from Cassio Neri --- Because of the typeid check the unsafe static_cast never happens and I think the compiler should not be warning about a problem that doesn't exist. Besides, there's no array involved in this code. I

[Bug tree-optimization/101436] New: Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array bounds"

2021-07-13 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436 Bug ID: 101436 Summary: Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array bounds" Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/101225] New: Example where y % 16 == 0 seems more expensive than y % 400 == 0.

2021-06-26 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101225 Bug ID: 101225 Summary: Example where y % 16 == 0 seems more expensive than y % 400 == 0. Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/88797] [9 Regression] Unneeded branch added when function is inlined (function runs faster if not inlined)

2021-05-14 Thread cassio.neri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797 --- Comment #13 from Cassio Neri --- FWIW: This seems to have been fixed since 10.1. As we can see in [1], on version 10.1, test_f has no unnecessary branches, as opposed to version 9.3. [1] https://godbolt.org/z/h87Efbanb As far as I'm