[Bug tree-optimization/102486] __builtin_popcount(y&-y) is not optimized to 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102486 Luc Van Oostenryck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot

[Bug rtl-optimization/100377] needless stack adjustment when passing struct in register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377 --- Comment #3 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- > I thought there was one which I filed which is much older than those but I > can't find it. Probably also related to PR36409 and PR49157

[Bug rtl-optimization/100378] New: [Regression 9/10/11/12] arm64: lsl + asr used instead of sxth

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50727 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50727=edit testcase On arm64, w

[Bug rtl-optimization/100377] New: needless stack adjustment when passing struct in register

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50726 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50726=edit testcases When compil

[Bug target/100075] [9/10 Regression] unneeded sign extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100075 --- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Fixed on the trunk. Probably shouldn't be backported. Work great here. Thanks.

[Bug target/100056] [9/10 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #11 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Works nicely now. Thank you.

[Bug target/100028] [9/10 Regression] arm64 failure to generate bfxil

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028 --- Comment #8 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Woks nicely now. Thanks

[Bug target/100075] New: [9/10/11 Regression] unneeded sign extension

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: aarch64 Created attachment 50588 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50588=edit t

[Bug target/100072] New: [10/11 Regression] csel vs. csetm + and

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: aarch64 Created attachment 50587 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50587=edit testc

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #7 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50585 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50585=edit newer testcases (with 32 -> 64-bit extensions)

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #6 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. OTOH, for the signed case things seems to be OK unless the sign extension is

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #5 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50584 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50584=edit updated test cases

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. Mmmm, that's working fine for the cases I had but not in more general cases.

[Bug target/100056] New: [9/10/11 Regression]

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: aarch64 Created attachment 50573 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50573=edit or-shift vs. [us]bfiz On arm64, the following code: unsig

[Bug target/100028] [9/10/11 Regression] arm64 failure to generate bfxil

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028 --- Comment #5 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Created attachment 50571 [details] > gcc11-pr100028.patch > > Untested fix. This solve the few cases I had. Thanks.

[Bug rtl-optimization/100046] New: compare with itself

Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50569 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50569=edit compare with itself The attached file reprodu

[Bug target/100028] New: arm64 failure to generate bfxil

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: aarch64 Created attachment 50555 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50555=edit should gener

[Bug c/92935] typeof() on an atomic type doesn't always return the corresponding unqualified type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935 Luc Van Oostenryck changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug c/95379] Don't warn about the universal zero initializer for a structure with the 'designated_init' attribute.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379 --- Comment #14 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #7) > The feature was added specifically to mimic what sparse does. > If sparse changes, I think changing gcc would be appropriate. Sparse warnings issued when

[Bug c/95379] Don't warn about the universal zero initializer for a structure with the 'designated_init' attribute.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379 --- Comment #11 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > GCC uses -Wno-designated-init to disable the warning (this option has been > there included for a while)? Do you think sparse could add/use the same >

[Bug c/95379] Don't warn about the universal zero initializer for a structure with the 'designated_init' attribute.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379 Luc Van Oostenryck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com

[Bug c/92935] New: typeof() on an atomic type doesn't always return the corresponding unqualified type

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 47495 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47495=edit testcases typ

[Bug c/81049] New: no warning for simple uninitialized variables

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- gcc doesn't issue a warning for very simple cases of uninitialized variable. The options used are '-Wuninitialized -O2' or '-Wmaybe-uninitialized -O2'. It can