https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58790
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I'm still not familiar with this part of GCC, but isn't `_2 == { -1, -1, -1, -1
}` equivalent to _1, i.e. it reverses VEC_COND_EXPR? However, if the `==` is
supposed to return a scalar boolean instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100716
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 50877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50877=edit
proposed patch
Ensure dump_template_decl for function templates never prints template
parameters after the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100763
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 50876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50876=edit
proposed patch
dump_type on 'const std::string' should not print 'const string' unless
TFF_UNQUALIFIED_NAME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100763
Bug ID: 100763
Summary: Diagnostics of type alias is missing scope
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100716
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I'd like to revise my opinion above. dump_template_decl should never print the
template parameter list of functions. I.e. it should be 'template f()'
not 'template f()'. Because it's also declared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100716
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
With -fno-pretty-templates both test cases do print the template_parms.
That's because in dump_function_decl, without flag_pretty_templates, t isn't
generalized and thus is not considered a primary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100716
Bug ID: 100716
Summary: member function template parameter not printed in
candidate list
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Is this the same issue:
struct A {
double v;
};
struct B {
double v;
B& operator=(const B& rhs) {
v = rhs.v;
return *this;
}
};
// 10 loads & stores
void f(A& a, const A& b) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
> I guess I need it for unaligned loads/stores, correct? Otherwise __v4df
> should work everywhere.
1. You can freely reinterpret_cast by value between all the different
[[gnu::vector_size(N)]]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99728
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
FWIW, using std::experimental::native_simd also does not hoist the
stores out of the loop. However, if you pass d by value and return d, the issue
goes away. So I guess this is an aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99201
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I reduced it some more:
template
auto
make_tester(const RefF& reffun)
{
return [=](auto in) {
auto&& expected = [&](const auto&... vs) {
if constexpr (sizeof(in) > 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99201
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Manual reduction which fails with 8-11 and compiles ok with 7:
template
void
test_values_2arg(F&&... fun_pack)
{
(fun_pack(V(), V()), ...);
}
template
auto
make_tester(const TestF&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99201
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I'll try to find a better reduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99201
Bug ID: 99201
Summary: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16581
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98894
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I already posted a fix on the gcc-patches and libstdc++ lists:
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/experimental/bits/simd.h: Remove unnecessary static
assertion. Allow sizeof(8) integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Created attachment 50055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50055=edit
unreduced test case
This is the test case I gave to C-Vise. It's already reduced from a more
confusing test,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
This is reduced from a larger (4MB) testcase which doesn't have any unused
arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
Bug ID: 98834
Summary: Code path incorrectly determined to be unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
18 matches
Mail list logo
