https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118348
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> I'm not sure this one is caused by my commit.
>
> It fails for me before g:0c5c0c959c2e592b84739f19ca771fa69eb8dfee already
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
HACCKernels (https://git.cels.anl.gov/hacc/HACCKernels) seems to miscompile and
result in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #27 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, that's unfortunate :/ Looking at the log, it says:
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
skipping incompatible
/va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118200
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672269.html
It simply skips processing of simduid if it's not default def (which AFAIU
indicates it's in S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118200
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60051&action=edit
simduid dump that's input to vectorizer pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #22 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi, the patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20241220/0c361030/attachment-0001.txt
fixes the issues with multilib configs and libdruntime.
@all: Could
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
While working on patch to enable SVE with offloading
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-December/245265.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the test-case adapted from pr96390.C:
template struct V
{
int version_called; V ()
{
version_called = 1
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
The following test (libgomp/pr104783.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96265
--- Comment #11 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Yes, those two errors are expected.
I posted RFC discussion about AArch64/nvptx offloading issues here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-July/244466.html
For the unrecognized
: minor
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
gcc -foo results in following error:
error: unrecognized command-line option '-foo'
and results in exit s
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following test-case:
subroutine test_dt (dt, y)
implicit none
real :: y (10, 20, 30)
type t
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following minimal C test:
int main()
{
return 0;
}
Compiling with -flto with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860
--- Comment #8 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Tamar,
Using -falign-loops=5 indeed brings back the performance.
The adrp instruction has same address (0x4ae784) by setting -falign-loops=5
(which reduces misalignment to 4) with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114860
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Tamar,
Sorry for late response.
perf profile for povray with LTO:
Compiled with 82d6d385f97 (commit before a2f4be3dae0
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
It seems performance of povray bmk is regressing ~5.5% with -O3 -flto
-march=native -mcpu=neoverse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #11 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the quick fix! I verified it now compiles the test-case with -O3
-mcpu=neoverse-v2. I suppose this will need backporting to gcc-13 branch. The
test compiles OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57957&action=edit
SLP dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Does -fno-cost-model affect the behavior here?
With 43da77a4, it doesn't result in ICE with -fno-vect-cost-model or
-fvect-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57956&action=edit
Input to SLP pass (dse4 dump)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Investigating this a bit further, the ICE appears with gfortran-13 because for
the testcase, because length of postorder traversal over SLP graph (27) doesn't
match number of node
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following test-case:
SUBROUTINE MY_ROUTINE (N, A, B )
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, INTENT(IN):: N
COMPLEX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112950
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112950
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
--- Comment #15 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the regression, and thanks for the prompt fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111702
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
HI, sorry for the breakage, will take a look.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
--- Comment #7 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> It seems we have VECTOR_CST_NELTS_PER_PATTERN ({ 9.0e+0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 })
> 2 and VECTOR_CST_NPATTERNS == 1. And the selector { 1, 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue is that we only support integral vector types in fold_vec_perm_cst,
but fail to check for the same before calling it from fold_vec_perm.
The following tweak fixes the ICE:
diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111754
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Sorry for the breakage, will take a look.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following test-case:
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof (int) * 4)));
v4si f(int x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3)
> Created attachment 56037 [details]
> Untested fix
>
> The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 56037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56037&action=edit
Untested fix
The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end up c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Sorry for the breakage, will take a look.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
--- Comment #8 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> = ((q1 & 0) == 0) ? VECTOR_CST_NPATTERNS (arg0)
> : VECTOR_CST_NPATTERNS (arg1);
>
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #9)
> It looks like as if the first fix didn't entirely solve the problem. It
> turns out that the normal form of const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110857
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
profiledbootstrap now works on aarch64-linux-gnu, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110857
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Honza,
Sorry for late response, and thanks for the fix! I am currently running
profiledbootstrap on aarch64 with your fix, and will let you know the results
after it completes.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> (In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #1)
> > The optimization introduced by r14-2879-g7cdd0860949c6c hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #1)
> The optimization introduced by r14-2879-g7cdd0860949c6c hits during
> combination of insn
>
> (insn 31 3 32 2 (set
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following test-case adapted from libgcc/fixed-bit.c:
typedef int DItype __attribute__ ((mode (DI)));
void
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Bootstrapping gcc with profiledboostrap results in following failure:
during GIMPLE pass: ivcanon
../../gcc/gcc/cfgrtl.cc: In function ‘bool could_fall_through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110280
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107920
--- Comment #14 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/607714.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107920
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53992|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107920
--- Comment #11 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53992&action=edit
untested fix
Thanks for the suggestions. The attached pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106360
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Sorry for the breakage. I will take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #3)
> > Are you still working on this PR ? If not, can I assign it to myself ?
>
> Yes I am - its almost done - just been busy with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93183
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > We get:
> > .L3:
> > ld1bz0.b, p0/z, [x1, x3]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
--- Comment #8 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch committed for vceq:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=316dd79876873222552bdf6aa31338012bc9b955
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d9937da063e5847f45f7f1f7a02bed7dbc8fb2f6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #17 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> I see, so it's a real issue and I support the workaround mentioned in
> Comment 10.
> Please send it to the mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #16 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #14)
> I just ran into the same problem, with a slightly different testcase:
This is a better one to reproduce the issue, thanks! I verified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #13 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IIUC, the issue comes from the following mismatch in cl_optimization_compare:
if (ptr1->x_arm_fp16_format != ptr2->x_arm_fp16_format)
internal_error ("% are modifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #12 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 50003
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50003&action=edit
options-save.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49997&action=edit
untested fix
Hi,
Sorry for late response. The option that seemed to be causing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Unfortunately I am still getting the same ICE with
g:e91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49954&action=edit
Output of passing --verbose
Command line option used to compile:
../arm-stage1-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49953&action=edit
Preprocessed test-case
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For any test-case, that includes arm_neon.h, for instance:
#include
void f() {}
Passing incompatible fp16 format seems to result in ICE.
For example, passing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the suggestions, I could reproduce it now.
Input to isel is:
_1 = a_2(D) == b_3(D);
c_4 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_1, { -1, -1, -1, -1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
return c_4;
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
It seems to work on my machine for x86_64.
Compiling with -O3 (or -O2),
.optimized dump shows:
v4si foo (v4si b, v4si a)
{
v4si c;
vector(4) _1;
[local count: 1073741824
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98435
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following test-case:
#include
bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
{
return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
}
bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Following test-case ICE's with -fgimple:
int __GIMPLE() f(int x, int y)
{
int a;
a = (x < y) ? 1 : 2;
return a;
}
foo.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
Similar to PR97872 and PR97903, for following test-case:
#include
uint32x2_t f1(float32x2_t a, float32x2_t b)
{
return vabs_f32 (a) >= vabs_f32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following test-case:
#include
uint8x8_t f1(int8x8_t a, int8x8_t b) {
return (uint8x8_t) ((a & b) != 0);
}
uint8
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
For the following test-case:
#include
uint8x8_t f1(int8x8_t a, int8x8_t b) {
return a < b;
}
uint8x8_t f2(int8x8_t a, int8x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Sorry for the breakage, will take a look.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I've got a patch candidate, will send it to GCC patches mailing list.
Sorry for the breakage, and thanks for taking a look!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93397
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93054
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92867
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89007
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Dec 9 09:59:42 2019
New Revision: 279112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-09 Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92704
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Thu Nov 21 20:20:36 2019
New Revision: 278598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use safe_dyn_cast instead of dyn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92328
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #1)
> Hi,
> I reverted Segher's commit in my local tree, but am still seeing the same
> code-gen for g().
Oops I was modifying wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92163
--- Comment #7 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Oct 28 15:01:24 2019
New Revision: 277525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-28 Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91272
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Oct 28 14:50:58 2019
New Revision: 277524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-28 Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92163
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted updated patch upstream:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01702.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92163
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47079
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47079&action=edit
Untested fix
Does this patch look OK ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91532
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Oct 21 07:31:45 2019
New Revision: 277237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-21 Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86753
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Fri Oct 18 05:13:26 2019
New Revision: 277141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90723
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #1)
> > Author: prathamesh3492
> > Date: Sat Jul 13 08:28:33 2019
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92085
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Tue Oct 15 07:19:41 2019
New Revision: 276984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276984&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-15 Prathamesh Kulkarni
1 - 100 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
