[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 --- Comment #12 from Ulrich Drepper --- On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Maybe I miss something, but I would expect to sort all branches in > emit_case_decision_tree as either

[Bug middle-end/59521] New: __builtin_expect not effective in switch

-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com When used in switch, __builtin_expect should reorder the comparisons appropriately. Take this code: #include stdio.h void f(int ch) { switch (__builtin_expect(ch, 333)) { case 3: puts

[Bug libstdc++/54869] ext/random/simd_fast_mersenne_twister_engine/cons/default.cc FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869 --- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-10-09 11:23:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) The new ext/random/simd_fast_mersenne_twister_engine/cons/default.cc testcase FAILs on Solaris/SPARC (both 32 and 64-bit

[Bug tree-optimization/54855] New: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on vector element

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855 Bug #: 54855 Summary: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on vector element Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug c++/54825] New: ICE with vector extension

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825 Bug #: 54825 Summary: ICE with vector extension Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/54825] ICE with vector extension

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825 --- Comment #1 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-10-05 13:58:21 UTC --- In case the version number isn't making this clear, I tested this with the current mainline code. 4.7 probably won't work at all since some

[Bug c++/54825] ICE with vector extension

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825 --- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-10-05 13:59:26 UTC --- Created attachment 28363 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28363 Reproducer Why didn't BZ add the file?...

[Bug tree-optimization/54825] ICE with vector extension

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825 --- Comment #11 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-10-05 15:12:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) Created attachment 28364 [details] patch patch I am testing. This seems to fix the problem for me, even

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #36 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-09-05 13:25:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #35) What will happen if the assembly accept rdrand, but not the CPU? The code at runtime checks for the feature bit

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #37 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-09-05 13:57:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) (though, apparently insufficient for i?86 - it should use either __get_cpuid, or __get_cpuid_max before __cpuid). I fixed

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #20 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-09-04 01:06:33 UTC --- Created attachment 28127 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28127 Check for rdrand availability How about this patch? Not sure whether

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #15 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-09-02 20:04:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) libstdc++ should check if rdrand is supported by assembler before using __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step. Every gcc feature

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #9 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-31 17:46:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) Is it clear which are the specific requirements for the various x86* targets? I'm wondering if after all it's just matter

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-30 20:19:35 UTC --- The instruction is generated by the compiler. If you try to compile a new compiler you have to make sure the tools used are recent enough to understand

[Bug c++/54376] New: incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 Bug #: 54376 Summary: incorrect complaint about redefinition Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug c++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 --- Comment #10 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-25 22:54:02 UTC --- Created attachment 28085 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28085 Avoid nested inlined friend functions This patch fixes the issue

[Bug target/54087] __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087 --- Comment #8 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-23 15:41:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) Check to see if it solves the problem as well. I tested it. Seems to work in all cases and does not disturb other

[Bug middle-end/54299] New: Array parameter does not allow for iterator syntax

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54299 Bug #: 54299 Summary: Array parameter does not allow for iterator syntax Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/54167] New: excessive alignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54167 Bug #: 54167 Summary: excessive alignment Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/54087] __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087 --- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-02 14:33:19 UTC --- One more data point. In a micro-benchmark which uses realistic code used in production the change from __sync_sub_and_fetch(var, constant

[Bug target/54087] __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087 --- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-03 02:16:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) This patch introduces atomic_fetch_submode: Seems to work nicely.

[Bug target/54087] __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087 --- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 16:06:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) Use __atomic_add_fetch and __atomic_fetch_sub in the testcase, and you will Eh, __atomic_fetch_add

[Bug target/54087] New: __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087 Bug #: 54087 Summary: __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/53243] New: Use vector comparisons for if cascades

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53243 Bug #: 53243 Summary: Use vector comparisons for if cascades Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/52070] New: missing integer comparison optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070 Bug #: 52070 Summary: missing integer comparison optimization Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/52034] New: __builtin_copysign optimization suboptimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52034 Bug #: 52034 Summary: __builtin_copysign optimization suboptimal Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/51492] vectorizer does not support saturated arithmetic patterns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492 --- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-01-08 18:56:48 UTC --- Note, this code appears in gzip and therefore IIRC in specCPU (in deflate.c:fill_window). Although when compiling gzip myself with that code embedded

[Bug c++/51785] New: gets not anymore declared

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785 Bug #: 51785 Summary: gets not anymore declared Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/51492] New: vectorizer generates unnecessary code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492 Bug #: 51492 Summary: vectorizer generates unnecessary code Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/50984] New: Boolean return value expression clears register too often

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50984 Bug #: 50984 Summary: Boolean return value expression clears register too often Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/50963] New: TLS incompatible with -mcmodel=large PIC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50963 Bug #: 50963 Summary: TLS incompatible with -mcmodel=large PIC Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/50734] New: const and pure attributes don't have the effect as in C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50734 Bug #: 50734 Summary: const and pure attributes don't have the effect as in C Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/47043] New: allow deprecating enum values

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47043 Summary: allow deprecating enum values Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: