[Bug target/97304] Boostrap failure on freebsd: ld: error: unable to find library -lc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > > If --with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld is required then > > it needs to be documented at

[Bug fortran/111938] Missing OpenACC/Fortran handling in 'gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111938 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609 since r13-3596-ge7310e24b1c0ca

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/106402] half preicision is not supported by gfortran(real*2).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106402 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-13 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libfortran/110966] should matmul_c8_avx512f be updated with matmul_c8_x86-64-v4.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110966 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #14) > Admittedly a single "mov" isn't much of a saving on modern architectures, > but as demonstrated by the PR, people still track the number of them.

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- Fixed by r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0221: 0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e is the first new commit commit 0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e Author: Andrew MacLeod Date: Thu Aug 17 12:34:59 2023

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug modula2/111956] Many powerpc platforms do _not_ have support for IEEE754 long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3) > Perhaps related to this PR: On x86_64, the following basic wrapper around > int128 addition > > __uint128_t f(__uint128_t x, __uint128_t y) { return x + y; }

[Bug tree-optimization/105558] simple 8-bit integer calculation fails with -O3 / march=core-avx2 on some gfortran 8/9/10 versions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105558 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Would be interesting to find what patch broke this and what patch fixed the > -mtune=generic case. It is not easy bisecting with old compilers - compilation

[Bug tree-optimization/105834] [13/14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 (trunk vs. 12.1.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105834 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- The original regression was caused by r12-4526-gd8edfadfc7a979 . d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844 is the first bad commit commit d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844 Author: Aldy Hernandez

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] Dead |[12/13 Regression] Dead

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13/14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- The code from comment#2 and from comment#3 no longer calls foo with current trunk, r14-5108-g751fc7bcdcdf25 . Now, to see which commit fixed it...

[Bug tree-optimization/110116] [12/13 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12/13 Regression] ICE on

[Bug tree-optimization/110116] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Looks like this has been fixed in the meantime: tkoenig@gcc188:~> gcc -O3 small.c small.c: In function 'main': small.c:6:21: warning: iteration 2147483646 invokes undefined behavior

[Bug middle-end/111921] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with nested function after an error since r6-205-g5c4abbb8e80153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111921 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug target/112112] Improper Arithmetic Type Conversion in s390x-linux-gnu-gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112112 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/111921] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with nested function after an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111921 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/112276] [14 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -msse4.2 since r14-4964-g7eed861e8ca3f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112276 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/112112] Improper Arithmetic Type Conversion in s390x-linux-gnu-gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112112 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/112113] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112113 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2) > According to bisection, f5fb9ff2396fd41fdd2e6d35a412e936d2d42f75 > is the first bad commit. Or, if anybody wants a link,

[Bug tree-optimization/112113] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112113 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- > It does not ICE with aa90195, for which the original test case ICEs, > so it is something else (although probably related). .. or at least it does not ICE with checking disabled (to be exact).

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > If someone is worried about uninitialized variables or an executed infinite > loop, this also ICEs at -O3: > ``` > long t; > long a() { > long b = t, c = t; >

[Bug fortran/30409] [fortran] missed optimization with pure function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||21046 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug tree-optimization/111916] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111916 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong code at -O1 and above |[14 Regression] wrong code

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug tree-optimization/111652] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111652 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/111373] New: Register moves right before stores and return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373 Bug ID: 111373 Summary: Register moves right before stores and return Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug target/106271] Bootstrap on RISC-V on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS: bits/libc-header-start.h: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #6) > I noticed recent commit r14-3387-g47f95bc4be4eb14730ab3eaaaf8f6e71fda47690 > "RISC-V: Add multiarch support on riscv-linux-gnu" -- but can't tell > off-hand

[Bug tree-optimization/111221] New: Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111221 Bug ID: 111221 Summary: Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/111096] Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111096 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8) > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7) > > Would it make sense to document this somewhere? Or did I just miss it? :-) > > Possibly, but I've no idea

[Bug target/111096] Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111096 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5) > This was a deliberate design choice. Although the frame chain is not set up > by code that omits the frame pointer, the chain of frames that are set up by >

[Bug target/111096] Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111096 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-September/456662.html > > I think this is by design of the ABI ... The workaround mentioned in the thread

[Bug rtl-optimization/111096] New: Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111096 Bug ID: 111096 Summary: Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/110888] Missing optimization for trivial MATMUL cases, requires -fno-signed-zeros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110888 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |fortran --- Comment #4 from Thomas

[Bug middle-end/110888] Missing optimization for trivial MATMUL cases, requires -fno-signed-zeros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110888 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |middle-end --- Comment #3 from Thomas

[Bug libgomp/110842] [14 Regression] Openmp loops with KIND=16 DO loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Why a regression? It worked before (if only by accident), hence I put "Regression" there. > libgomp has no support for loop iterators larger than 64-bit

[Bug libgomp/110842] [14 Regression] Openmp loops with KIND=16 DO loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Keywords|

[Bug libgomp/110842] New: [14 Regression] Openmp loops with KIND=16 DO loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842 Bug ID: 110842 Summary: [14 Regression] Openmp loops with KIND=16 DO loops Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/68360] GCC bitfield processing code is very inefficient

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68360 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2015-11-16 00:00:00 |2023-7-16 CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > This seems to be improved on trunk ... gcc is down to 37 instructions now for the original test case with -O3. icc, which appears to be best, has 33, see

[Bug rtl-optimization/110479] Unnecessary register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110479 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/110481] New: Possible improvements in dense switch statement returning values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110481 Bug ID: 110481 Summary: Possible improvements in dense switch statement returning values Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug rtl-optimization/110479] New: Unnecessary register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110479 Bug ID: 110479 Summary: Unnecessary register move Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/110240] New: Unnecessary register move in indexed swap routine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110240 Bug ID: 110240 Summary: Unnecessary register move in indexed swap routine Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID

[Bug fortran/109659] New: gcc_builtin module for gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109659 Bug ID: 109659 Summary: gcc_builtin module for gfortran Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||12.2.0 --- Comment #7 from Thomas

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- Might be invalid code, see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-March/059062.html That appears to be a problem with widely used old-style linear congruential random number generators, which expect

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 54619 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54619=edit Compressed input file

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 54618 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54618=edit Header file needed for compilation

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 54617 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54617=edit rnflow.f90

[Bug tree-optimization/109075] New: [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075 Bug ID: 109075 Summary: [13 Regression] rnflow hangs at -O3 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/109019] Failure to optimize b + c -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109019 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/109019] New: Failure to optimize b + c -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109019 Bug ID: 109019 Summary: Failure to optimize b + c -1 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/108863] Unrolling could use range information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108863 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/108863] New: Unrolling could use range information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108863 Bug ID: 108863 Summary: Unrolling could use range information Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/108844] New: sincos opportunity missed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108844 Bug ID: 108844 Summary: sincos opportunity missed Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/108839] New: Option for rerolling loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108839 Bug ID: 108839 Summary: Option for rerolling loops Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/108826] New: Inefficient address generation on POWER and RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826 Bug ID: 108826 Summary: Inefficient address generation on POWER and RISC-V Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/108710] Recognizing "rounding down to the nearest power of two"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108710 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Actually, register allocation is OK for an architecture with destructive shifts only.

[Bug tree-optimization/108710] New: Recognizing "rounding down to the nearest power of two"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108710 Bug ID: 108710 Summary: Recognizing "rounding down to the nearest power of two" Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug fortran/108665] New: Depenency checking: Run-time loop reversal instead of creating a temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108665 Bug ID: 108665 Summary: Depenency checking: Run-time loop reversal instead of creating a temporary Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/108592] In IF statements -Winteger-division is repeated 4 times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > @Thomas: do you remember the reason you chose the "_now" version? I'm not sure any more. It's been a few years :-)

[Bug fortran/103506] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_free_namespace, at fortran/symbol.c:4039 since r10-2798-ge68a35ae4a65d2b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #11) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8) > > Doing the search in bugzilla, 137 bugs are marked as ic-on-invalid-code. I > > suggest we make all of these P5 or

[Bug fortran/108577] New: [meta-bug] Fortran 2023 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108577 Bug ID: 108577 Summary: [meta-bug] Fortran 2023 support Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig --- Seems that libquadmath is not built on that particular Linux/CPU variant, for whatever reason. At last I cannot find any '*quadmath* files in the build directory. /proc/cpuinfo tells me that processor

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- I tried compiling your tests on Apple silicon using Asahi Linux, but without success. A first step was rather easy; replacing __float128 by _Float128 was required. I then bootstrapped gcc on that machine

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- What we would need for incorporation into gcc is to have several functions, which would then called depending on which floating point options are in force at the time of invocation. So, let's go through

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 54273 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54273=edit matmul_r16.i Here is matmul_r16.i from a relatively recent trunk.

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Michael_S from comment #5) > Hi Thomas > Are you in or out? Depends a bit on what exactly you want to do, and if there is a chance that what you want to do will be incorporated into gcc. If

[Bug other/89204] -floop-interchange has no effect on Fortran code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89204 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Thomas

[Bug tree-optimization/31756] -floop-interchange is not working on some fortran loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31756 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com ---

[Bug fortran/108329] IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108329 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tkoenig at gcc

[Bug fortran/108329] IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108329 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/108329] IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108329 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1) > As long as PR 36678 That should be PR 34678 .

[Bug fortran/108329] IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108329 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |13.0 Depends on|

[Bug fortran/108329] New: IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108329 Bug ID: 108329 Summary: IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE ineffective with common subexpression elimination Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #49 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #48) > Clang gets this right, even without the pragma; The "even without the pragma" part is wrong.

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #48 from Thomas Koenig --- Clang gets this right, even without the pragma; the original test case is compiled to pushq %r14 pushq %rbx subq$24, %rsp movq%rsi, %r14 movq%rdi,

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||105105 --- Comment #47 from Thomas

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig --- Fortran gets this right: $ cat set_rounding_mode.f90 module x implicit none integer, parameter :: wp = selected_real_kind(15) contains subroutine foo(a,b,c) use ieee_arithmetic real(kind=wp),

[Bug rtl-optimization/108318] New: Floating point calculation moved out of loop despite fesetround

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108318 Bug ID: 108318 Summary: Floating point calculation moved out of loop despite fesetround Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > From what I can see, they are certainly not portable. > E.g. the relying on __int128 rules out various arches (basically all 32-bit > arches, > ia32, powerpc

[Bug libgcc/108279] Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 54183 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54183=edit Example patch with Michael S's code just pasted over the libgcc implementation, for a test A benchmarks: Just

[Bug libgcc/108279] New: Improved speed for float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279 Bug ID: 108279 Summary: Improved speed for float128 routines Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/108227] Unnecessary division when looping over array with size of elements not a power of two

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108227 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/108227] New: Unnecessary division when looping over array with size of elements not a power of two

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108227 Bug ID: 108227 Summary: Unnecessary division when looping over array with size of elements not a power of two Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/106576] Finalization of temporaries from functions not occuring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- > I hope that you are well and that the lack of time is for a good cause? Hi Paul, yes, I'm well, and the lack of time is indeed for a good cause :-) > I have just returned to my finalizer patch. With

[Bug fortran/106576] Finalization of temporaries from functions not occuring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug fortran/107317] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in emit_redzone_byte, at asan.cc:1508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P3

[Bug fortran/107317] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in emit_redzone_byte, at asan.cc:1508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- As this is invalid code (and in Fortran), should this actually be P2?

[Bug fortran/41453] use INTENT(out) for optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453 --- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #15) > Status update: A lot of progress :-) > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5) > > Still missing: To clobber > > > > - variables passed by reference to

[Bug tree-optimization/104265] Missed vectorization in 526.blender_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104265 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/106678] New: Inefficiency in long integer multiplication

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106678 Bug ID: 106678 Summary: Inefficiency in long integer multiplication Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

  1   2   3   4   >