[Bug rtl-optimization/111101] New: -finline-small-functions may invert FP arguments breaking FP bit accuracy in case of NaNs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=01 Bug ID: 01 Summary: -finline-small-functions may invert FP arguments breaking FP bit accuracy in case of NaNs Product: gcc Version: 11.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/110105] ARM GCC: underoptimization: expected vfma.f16, actual vcvtb-vfma.f32-vcvtb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110105 --- Comment #4 from Pavel M --- To: rsand...@gcc.gnu.org Thanks! I confused __fp16 with _Float16. However, if __fp16 is only a “storage type”, then why this code: __fp16 mul(__fp16 x, __fp16 y) { return x * y; } compiled with -O3

[Bug target/110105] ARM GCC: underoptimization: expected vfma.f16, actual vcvtb-vfma.f32-vcvtb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110105 --- Comment #1 from Pavel M --- Demo: https://godbolt.org/z/9s7eb9b1K.

[Bug target/110105] New: ARM GCC: underoptimization: expected vfma.f16, actual vcvtb-vfma.f32-vcvtb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110105 Bug ID: 110105 Summary: ARM GCC: underoptimization: expected vfma.f16, actual vcvtb-vfma.f32-vcvtb Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/51437] GCC should warn on the use of reserved identifier/macro names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437 --- Comment #18 from Pavel M --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17) > (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #5) > > I'd like to see this as well. While issuing such a warning by default would > > cause numerous warnings with

[Bug c/106797] Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior: not all declarations that refer to the same object or function have compatible type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106797 --- Comment #2 from Pavel M --- Observation: if "static" is removed, then GCC generates: : In function 'f2': :10:18: error: conflicting types for 'x'; have 'int (*)[5]' 10 | extern int (*x)[5]; | ^ :5:18: note:

[Bug c/106797] New: Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior: not all declarations that refer to the same object or function have compatible type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106797 Bug ID: 106797 Summary: Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior: not all declarations that refer to the same object or function have compatible type Product: gcc

[Bug c/51437] GCC should warn on the use of reserved identifier/macro names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437 Pavel M changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/106138] Inefficient code generation: logical AND of disjoint booleans from equal and bitwise AND not optimized to constant false

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138 --- Comment #7 from Pavel M --- May be useful: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/new-code-optimizer. Search for "Bit Estimator" section containing "Folding comparisons and branches".

[Bug c/106138] New: Inefficient code generation for cases when results can be deduced at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138 Bug ID: 106138 Summary: Inefficient code generation for cases when results can be deduced at compile time Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/3885] Incorrect "invalid suffix on integer constant" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3885 Pavel M changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/105488] Function definition is not generated OR function is not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105488 --- Comment #3 from Pavel M --- To: Andrew Pinski Indeed, per C11: > It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline definition > or the external definition. Thanks!

[Bug c/105488] New: Function definition is not generated OR function is not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105488 Bug ID: 105488 Summary: Function definition is not generated OR function is not inlined Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug preprocessor/105362] Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior in preprocessing directives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105362 --- Comment #2 from Pavel M --- I do believe that evaluation of constant expressions in conditional inclusion is done according to the rules of constant expressions ("except that ...", see C11, 6.10.1/1). Hence, I expect the same diagnostics in

[Bug c/105362] New: Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior in preprocessing directives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105362 Bug ID: 105362 Summary: Improvement: diagnose undefined behavior in preprocessing directives Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug preprocessor/105207] Translation phase 2: splicing physical source lines to form logical source lines may not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105207 --- Comment #4 from Pavel M --- To: Andrew Pinski At the 1st glance I expected to see that -E produces the output after splicing is done (i.e. xxx #error). However, the "preprocessing only" is out of scope of the C11. As stackoverflow.com user

[Bug c/105207] Translation phase 2: splicing physical source lines to form logical source lines may not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105207 Pavel M changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|C preprocessor: splicing|Translation phase 2:

[Bug c/105207] C preprocessor: splicing physical source lines to form logical source lines may not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105207 --- Comment #1 from Pavel M --- The same behavior with: xxx \ error Expected: xxx error Actual: xxx error

[Bug c/105207] New: C preprocessor: splicing physical source lines to form logical source lines may not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105207 Bug ID: 105207 Summary: C preprocessor: splicing physical source lines to form logical source lines may not work Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/104147] New: C preprocessor may remove the standard required whitespace between the preprocessing tokens

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104147 Bug ID: 104147 Summary: C preprocessor may remove the standard required whitespace between the preprocessing tokens Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/104095] New: g++ diagnosis may use non-standard terminology: "constant" instead of "literal", "integer" instead of "integral"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104095 Bug ID: 104095 Summary: g++ diagnosis may use non-standard terminology: "constant" instead of "literal", "integer" instead of "integral" Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c/83584] "ISO C forbids conversion of object pointer to function pointer type" -- no, not really

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584 Pavel M changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/103491] nextafter does not raise "overflow" and "inexact" floating-point exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103491 --- Comment #4 from Pavel M --- To: jos...@codesourcery.com Re: This testcase is incorrect. Indeed. The F.10.8.3 was misunderstood.

[Bug c/103491] New: nextafter does not raise "overflow" and "inexact" floating-point exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103491 Bug ID: 103491 Summary: nextafter does not raise "overflow" and "inexact" floating-point exceptions Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/20785] Pragma STDC * (C99 FP) unimplemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785 --- Comment #16 from Pavel M --- Note: The #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS is unknown and ignored (leading to FP issues), however, the __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined to 1. Confused.

[Bug c/103193] New: gcc for x86_64: wrong code generation: ucomiss instead of comiss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103193 Bug ID: 103193 Summary: gcc for x86_64: wrong code generation: ucomiss instead of comiss Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/20785] Pragma STDC * (C99 FP) unimplemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785 --- Comment #14 from Pavel M --- To: Vincent Lefèvre Re: the warnings are useless. The "warning: ignoring '#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS' [-Wunknown-pragmas]" probably needs to be generated by default (i.e. not with -Wall) because now gcc silently

[Bug c/20785] Pragma STDC * (C99 FP) unimplemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785 Pavel M changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/102821] Tentative definition of variable with internal linkage has incomplete non-array type: missing diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102821 --- Comment #2 from Pavel M --- Addition to "Notes" above. 3. C11, 5.1.1.3 Diagnostics, 1: > A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic message > (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a preprocessing >

[Bug c/102821] New: Tentative definition of variable with internal linkage has incomplete non-array type: missing diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102821 Bug ID: 102821 Summary: Tentative definition of variable with internal linkage has incomplete non-array type: missing diagnostics Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status:

[Bug middle-end/101063] New: #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON: wrong code generation: instructions leading to side effects may not be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101063 Bug ID: 101063 Summary: #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON: wrong code generation: instructions leading to side effects may not be generated Product: gcc Version: