https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
void
foo (double *a, double *b, double *c, int m, int o, int p)
{
_Cilk_for (int i = 0; i < p; ++i)
a[i] += __sec_reduce_add (b[i:o] * c[m:o:-1]);
}
ICEs with both C and C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Pablo Halpern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla@halpernwightsoftwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
--- Comment #6 from tprince at computer dot org ---
__sec_reduce_{min,max}_ind in Intel cilk(tm) plus don't give good performance,
so one may suspect they are using size_t.(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from
comment #5)
> While this started with my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While this started with my commit, the actual bug is there from the start of
Cilk+ support.
The __sec_reduce_* builtins are declared with int return type, which doesn't
actual match what they return (it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
