[Bug c++/103273] [12 Regression] internal compiler error: in cp_parser_type_id_1, at cp/parser.c:24010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103273 Steinar H. Gunderson changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug c++/103273] New: [12 Regression] internal compiler error: in cp_parser_type_id_1, at cp/parser.c:24010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103273 Bug ID: 103273 Summary: [12 Regression] internal compiler error: in cp_parser_type_id_1, at cp/parser.c:24010 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/103071] Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071 --- Comment #2 from Steinar H. Gunderson --- EitherIsSubset() in the example calls foo or bar (but with a redundant test that I can't get easily rid of). I agree that if you just return 0/1, the cmp+sete+or variant is probably as good, but

[Bug rtl-optimization/103071] New: Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071 Bug ID: 103071 Summary: Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 --- Comment #4 from Steinar H. Gunderson --- Yes, the integer promotion actually costs some performance. It happens on both x86 and Arm. Should I file that as a separate bug?

[Bug target/101200] Unneeded AND after shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101200 --- Comment #6 from Steinar H. Gunderson --- You're right, I don't know why the shrq happened. When I run now, I get shrb. Doesn't matter for the bug, though.

[Bug tree-optimization/101200] New: Unneeded AND after shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101200 Bug ID: 101200 Summary: Unneeded AND after shift Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/94956] Unable to remove impossible ffs() test for zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956 --- Comment #7 from Steinar H. Gunderson --- To wrap this up, confirming that GCC 11 does well on my benchmark: BM_Chain2054529 iterations 18781 ns/iter GCC 10, asm bsfq BM_Chain2044584 iterations 22509

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] New: Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 Bug ID: 101139 Summary: Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: